Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RulRes 2
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 03:56:05 -0400

On 4/29/02 at 8:52 PM Wonko wrote:

>{{
>__Ruleset Restructuring #2 - Vote Changing__
>
>Append rule 31, in its entirety, to rule 30. Then, repeal rule 31.
>
>[[The "players may *buzz* submit votes" would then take precedence over
>"exactly one vote"; it still forbids issuing more votes except to change
>one.]]
>
>Change the gamestate to what it would have been had it been legal for
>players to change eir votes at any time between the beginning of the game
>and the beginning of nweek 12's Voting period. [[not *crackle* hard to do;
>it's what we think the gamestate *buzz* is anyway]]
>}}
>[[quote from earlier msg]]
>
>-- 
>Wonk.

Aside from the whole proposal being a violation of r8, as I mentioned before, this is also a violation of r17 and r204.  The gamestate is the sum of the original rules and actions taken since then; to change the gamestate as if certain acts in the past were legal is to declare those acts to be legal.  This is an alteration of the past, and is illegal.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 03:56:48 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RR 3
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 4/29/02 at 8:53 PM Wonko wrote:

>{{
>__Ruleset Restructuting #3 - Last-Minute Revisions__
>
>In rule 19, append the text "unless the revision was issued before voting"
>to the 3rd sentence of the second paragraph.
>
>Change the Gamestate to what it would have been if that text had been in
>rule 19 since the beginning of the game. [[Not *crackle* hard to do; we've
>acted like it was there anyway]]
>}}
>[[quote from *crackle* earlier msg]]
>
>-- 
>*buzz*

Aside from the whole proposal being a violation of r8, as I mentioned before, this is also a violation of r17 and r204.  The gamestate is the sum of the original rules and actions taken since then; to change the gamestate as if certain acts in the past were legal is to declare those acts to be legal.  This is an alteration of the past, and is illegal.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 03:57:11 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RR 4
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 4/29/02 at 8:54 PM Wonko wrote:

>{{
>__Ruleset Restructuring #4 - The Ballot__
>
>In rule 23, replace the sentence
>"The Ballot shall list all proposals that were recognized after the start
>of
>the previous nweek's voting period."
>with the sentence
>"The Ballot shall list all proposals that were issued between the start of
>the previous nweek's voting period and the start of the current nweek's
>voting period."
>
>[[As it *crackle* is, stuff made after the Voting cutoff but before the
>Ballot was issued would be on that Ballot, then on the next nweek's Ballot
>too.]]
>
>Change the Gamestate to what it would have been if the above change had
>been
>made to rule 23 upon the beginning of the game.
>}}
>[[quote from earlier msg *buzz*]]
>
>-- 
>Wo*buzz*nk.

Aside from the whole proposal being a violation of r8, as I mentioned before, this is also a violation of r17 and r204.  The gamestate is the sum of the original rules and actions taken since then; to change the gamestate as if certain acts in the past were legal is to declare those acts to be legal.  This is an alteration of the past, and is illegal.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 03:58:16 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Mix Gnomes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 4/29/02 at 9:09 PM Wonko wrote:

>I change my proposal entitled __[[Circumnavigating the Entropy
>Restrictions]]__ to:
>
>{{
>__New Gnome Mixes__
>
>
>Append to the rule entitled "The Wine List" the following MIXN'MATCH
>delimited text:
>MIXN'MATCH
>A Winter Gnome mixed with a Water Gnome yields an Ice Gnome.
>A Summer Gnome mixed with an Air Gnome yields a Fire Gnome.
>Three Basic Gnomes mixed together yield a Gnome of a random type.
>A Winter Gnome mixed with a Summer Gnome, or a Fire Gnome mixed with a
>Water
>Gnome, yields a Yoyo Gnome.
>MIXN'MATCH
>}}
>}}
>[[quote from earlier msg]]
>-- 
>Wonk.

This is a violation of r8.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 04:05:06 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 4/26/02 at 12:20 AM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>{{
>__We can't speak properl... uh... right__

<insert big long prose form prop with fancy-pants multisyllable words here>

>}}

Most esteemed Bean, I'd like to invite you to find something else to do with this proposal slot because (a) the rule change in it is a subset of something proposed and passed last nweek, and (b) I don't whine that much about rules I myself implement. :)

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 07:19:54 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >[[
> >Hey, this is all *buzz* commented! That means I have every right to
> >exercies
> >extensive *crackle* verbosity. Everything below here *buzz* you need not
> >peruse; I'm gonna quote it, except without the *crackle* comment brackets,
> >in just a few minutes:
>
> Rule 8 states, "Comment text shall not have the force of Rule."  Note that it 
> doesn't say "does not," but rather it says "shall not," which is a
> forward-looking phrase.  This would imply that once text has been 
> introduced as a comment it cannot be made into a rule.
>
"text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be considered "comment" text".

The quoted version doesn't appear within [[]]s, so isn't comment text, so isn't covered by r8.

Feel free to argue otherwise; I'll look forward to posting the text of all your proosals in comments during the voting period. ;-)

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 07:27:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Karin L. Kross" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer  (Tuesday
 morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> Besides, since the statement that deletes the proposal is in
> the proposal, it'd only happen if the proposal actually passed.  
> It could only pass with those vote counts if it's a Charter
> Prop, in which case it can't delete itself because Charter
> Props weren't vested with that sort of authority.  If it
> failed, the deletion instruction in the proposal couldn't have
> been performed.

Fair enough -- I'll buy that logic.

And maybe, just for giggles and if I come up with the time, I'll 
create a proposal about self-deleting proposals.

-Congenital Optimist

-- 
[email-masked] | http://seishonagon.org
"Luckily, right at that moment, an unconscious Argentinian 
 fell through my roof!"      --Christian in "Moulin Rouge"

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 08:11:57 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RulRes 2
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> to change the gamestate as if certain acts in the past
> were legal is to declare those acts to be legal.
>
No. It's to change the present to what it would be if they had been legal. Granted, from the point of view of the rules it will look the same as if the past were different from how it actually was, but that's not the same thing (and even then, because this proosal is itself part of the past, it only superficially looks like the past was different - if you look closer, the past is consistent). There's no reason why a proosal can't arbitrarily change the current gamestate to anything it likes.

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 11:21:49 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/1/02 at 7:19 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> >[[
>> >Hey, this is all *buzz* commented! That means I have every right to
>> >exercies
>> >extensive *crackle* verbosity. Everything below here *buzz* you need not
>> >peruse; I'm gonna quote it, except without the *crackle* comment
>brackets,
>> >in just a few minutes:
>>
>> Rule 8 states, "Comment text shall not have the force of Rule."  Note
>that it 
>> doesn't say "does not," but rather it says "shall not," which is a
>> forward-looking phrase.  This would imply that once text has been 
>> introduced as a comment it cannot be made into a rule.
>>
>"text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
>considered "comment" text".
>
>The quoted version doesn't appear within [[]]s, so isn't comment text, so
>isn't covered by r8.
>
>Feel free to argue otherwise; I'll look forward to posting the text of all
>your proosals in comments during the voting period. ;-)
>
>uin.

The quoted version would not have been comment text had it been posted on its own authority; but since it was a quote from a comment, it was explicitly taking the text from a comment, and therefore trying to give comment text the force of rule.  Once Wonko made it comment text, the "shall not" kicks in, which means that comment text can't be used to make rules with.

My proposals, on the other hand, weren't comments in the first place, so r8 can't apply to them.  If you post the text of my proposals in comments, you're quoting me, and my proposals are still the original.  If you post comments whose text is identical in wording to the text of my proposals, but doesn't claim to quote my proposals, that's just a separate instance of the same words in the same order; it's not the same text.  Wonko could have done that, using the same words in the same order as eir comments in a proposal, and it wouldn't have affected r8, but e couldn't have legally used some of those words.

There's a relevant Jorges Luis Borges piece that addresses these issues, but that'd be a long quote.  Or a long comment. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 11:35:09 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RulRes 2
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/1/02 at 8:11 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> to change the gamestate as if certain acts in the past
>> were legal is to declare those acts to be legal.
>>
>No. It's to change the present to what it would be if they had been legal.
>Granted, from the point of view of the rules it will look the same as if
>the past were different from how it actually was, but that's not the same
>thing (and even then, because this proosal is itself part of the past, it
>only superficially looks like the past was different - if you look closer,
>the past is consistent). There's no reason why a proosal can't arbitrarily
>change the current gamestate to anything it likes.
>
>uin.

The gamestate is the sum of the initial ruleset and all actions taken since then.  This is inescapable, because of, among other things, the fact that a CFJ is explicitly a remedy for illegal events and actions.  The legitimacy of a CFJ that attempts to remedy a given event or action is dependent upon said events or actions actually existing and falling within the criteria of being addressable by a CFJ.  Therefore the legitimacy of a potential CFJ is part of the gamestate.

To change the gamestate to be as if certain events or actions were legal is to change the legitimacy of potential CFJs.  Since the legitimacy of those CFJs relies upon the state of the past, to change the legitimacy of those CFJs is to alter the past.

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 11:42:41 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The quoted version would not have been comment text
> had it been posted on its own authority; but since it
> was a quote from a comment, it was explicitly taking
> the text from a comment, and therefore trying to give
> comment text the force of rule.  Once Wonko made it
> comment text, the "shall not" kicks in, which means
> that comment text can't be used to make rules with.
>
It's not. The quote of it is. Comment text is text enclosed in [[]]s. Wonko's wasn't, therefore it isn't. It was a quote of it. That means, by Rwhateverthelatestruletodefinesomesillyhooptojumpthroughbeforepositingamessageis, he's allowed to post it regardless of syllabi. Despite being identical to, and a quote of, the comment text, however, it was not comment text, as it doesn't meet the definition of comment text.

> My proposals, on the other hand, weren't comments
> in the first place, so r8 can't apply to them.  If you
> post the text of my proposals in comments, you're
> quoting me, and my proposals are still the original. 
> If you post comments whose text is identical in
> wording to the text of my proposals, but doesn't
> claim to quote my proposals, that's just a separate
> instance of the same words in the same order; it's
> not the same text.  Wonko could have done that,
> using the same words in the same order as eir
> comments in a proposal, and it wouldn't have
> affected r8, but e couldn't have legally used some
> of those words.
>
"It's just a separate instance of the same words in the same order" - quite. That's sort of my point. R8 makes no distinction between "original" and "quoted" text - that's a distinction made only in Rwhatever. R8 cares not for such distinctions. For the sake of what R8 permits, only R8's criteria are important. So either Wonko can quote all he wants, or any instance of text in [[]]s can never have the "force of Rule".

> There's a relevant Jorges Luis Borges piece that
> addresses these issues, but that'd be a long
> quote.  Or a long comment. :)
>
"The map is not the territory". The quote is not the comment.

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:38:06 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Naath Thabana?= <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi.
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 --- Gavin Doig <[email-masked]> wrote: > <CFJ>
> <statement>It cannot be determined whether this
> statement appears within a legal CFJ.</statement>
> <defendant>Baron von Skippy</defendant>
> <analysis>
> I have the sushi. If I ran this through babelfish as
> one big word and added the whitespace afterwards,
> it's legal. If I didn't, it's not.
> 
> I'm not telling.
> </analysis>
> </CFJ>
very clever...

Naath

==Like duct tape the force is, a light side and a dark side it has, holds the universe together it does, hmm.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 18:27:39 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/1/02 at 11:42 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>"The map is not the territory". The quote is not the comment.

These two statements do not have an analogous relationship.  Except in the instance where both of them are wrong.

A map can in fact be a territory, if the territory is fictitious, an element of a novel.  In that instance, the territory does not exist except as defined by the story elements, one of which is an illustrative map.  Thus, the map is the territory, because the map defines the territory.

A quote of a comment is in fact the comment, repeated.  A quote is, according to the dictionary, an instance of quoting, and to quote something is "to repeat a brief passage or excerpt from" it.  Since the something being quoted is a block of text, an expression of a concept, then to quote that thing, to repeat it, is to re-express the concept.  Therefore, if something is a quote of something else, then the quote is a second instance of that same something else.  The same combination of words is not necessarily a quote, since the "to repeat" part of the definition implies intent.  An identical combination of words can exist independently of what it's identical to, but a quote has a direct explicit dependent relationship to the text being quoted and cannot exist as a quote without it.

Therefore, when Wonko is quoting eir comments, e is explicitly creating a second instance of the original comment.  Since r8 says that comments not only do not, but also "shall not", have the force of rule, if e creates multiple instances of what's originally a comment, by making each instance an explicit quote, then those instances must fall under the same "shall not" restriction.  Meaning Wonko's quotes of comments carry the same burden the comments themselves do.  And therefore can't be adopted.

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi.
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 21:20:02 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<CFJ>
<statement>It cannot be determined whether this statement appears within a 
legal CFJ.</statement>
<defendant>Baron von Skippy</defendant>
<analysis>
I have the sushi. If I ran this through babelfish as one big word and added 
the whitespace afterwards, it's legal. If I didn't, it's not.

I'm not telling.
</analysis>
</CFJ>

uin.
--

-Just out of curiosity, what happens if this is judged True? If it is... 
then lucky you, you might have gotten away with something. *pause* Um, yay 
you, beating the system...-

                                        -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 21:25:28 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi.
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Gavin Doig,

> <CFJ>
> <statement>It cannot be determined whether this statement appears within a
> legal CFJ.</statement>
> <defendant>Baron von Skippy</defendant>
> <analysis>
> I have the sushi. If I ran this through babelfish as one big word and added
> the whitespace afterwards, it's legal. If I didn't, it's not.
> 
> I'm not telling.
> </analysis>
> </CFJ>
> 
> uin.

As Babel Fish works hell on unknown punctuation, such as the <'s, and it
would translate words such as </analysis> strangely despite the existence of
whitespace, I would have to conclude that this message was unsushiied.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 21:56:23 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/1/02 at 11:42 AM Gavin Doig wrote:
> 
>> "The map is not the territory". The quote is not the comment.
> 
> These two statements do not have an analogous relationship.  Except in the
> instance where both of them are wrong.
> 
> A map can in fact be a territory, if the territory is fictitious, an element
> of a novel.  In that instance, the territory does not exist except as defined
> by the story elements, one of which is an illustrative map.  Thus, the map is
> the territory, because the map defines the territory.

Then the map is a physical representation of a fictitious territory; how
could one possibly claim that the map *is* a fictitious territory?

> A quote of a comment is in fact the comment, repeated.  A quote is, according
> to the dictionary, an instance of quoting, and to quote something is "to
> repeat a brief passage or excerpt from" it.

Okay.

> Since the something being quoted
> is a block of text, an expression of a concept, then to quote that thing, to
> repeat it, is to re-express the concept.

No - to quote it is to repeat the same pattern of letters. Which I did.
Whether or not the meaning is the same is entirely independant.

>  Therefore, if something is a quote
> of something else, then the quote is a second instance of that same something
> else.  The same combination of words is not necessarily a quote, since the "to
> repeat" part of the definition implies intent.  An identical combination of
> words can exist independently of what it's identical to, but a quote has a
> direct explicit dependent relationship to the text being quoted and cannot
> exist as a quote without it.

Admittedly, a quote cannot be considered a quote without having something to
quote from; however, it does not have to mean the same thing as the quoted
passage.

> Therefore, when Wonko is quoting eir comments, e is explicitly creating a
> second instance of the original comment.  Since r8 says that comments not only
> do not, but also "shall not", have the force of rule, if e creates multiple
> instances of what's originally a comment, by making each instance an explicit
> quote, then those instances must fall under the same "shall not" restriction.
> Meaning Wonko's quotes of comments carry the same burden the comments
> themselves do.  And therefore can't be adopted.

By your earlier definition of 'to quote' - "to repeat a brief passage or
excerpt from", combined with the above logic, if I go [[this]], then the
word "this" could never again have the force of law, as any usage of it
would be a repetition of something which is quoted.

The point is, it doesn't matter where text has been. What matters, according
to r8, is whether or not the specific instance of text in question is, at
that moment, encased in comment brackets. Although I may be quoting from a
comment, the quote itself is not commented. The quote exists independantly
of the text not quoted.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 22:00:43 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RulRes 2
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/1/02 at 8:11 AM Gavin Doig wrote:
> 
>>> to change the gamestate as if certain acts in the past
>>> were legal is to declare those acts to be legal.
>>> 
>> No. It's to change the present to what it would be if they had been legal.
>> Granted, from the point of view of the rules it will look the same as if
>> the past were different from how it actually was, but that's not the same
>> thing (and even then, because this proosal is itself part of the past, it
>> only superficially looks like the past was different - if you look closer,
>> the past is consistent). There's no reason why a proosal can't arbitrarily
>> change the current gamestate to anything it likes.
>> 
>> uin.
> 
> The gamestate is the sum of the initial ruleset and all actions taken since
> then.  This is inescapable, because of, among other things, the fact that a
> CFJ is explicitly a remedy for illegal events and actions.  The legitimacy of
> a CFJ that attempts to remedy a given event or action is dependent upon said
> events or actions actually existing and falling within the criteria of being
> addressable by a CFJ.  Therefore the legitimacy of a potential CFJ is part of
> the gamestate.

The Gamestate is, quite simply, the state of the game. It can be changed;
indeed, it is every time any player performs an action. That's certainly
legal.

> To change the gamestate to be as if certain events or actions were legal is to
> change the legitimacy of potential CFJs.  Since the legitimacy of those CFJs
> relies upon the state of the past, to change the legitimacy of those CFJs is
> to alter the past.

CFJ's care about the current state of the game; they do depend on past
events, but they depend on ALL past events. If an action suddenly decides
that another action should be treated as if it were legal, then CFJs will
have to find the action legal, because it is as of the time of the Judgment.
Or, you can CFJ that "Action A was illegal", in which case, yes, the CFJ
will be true, but the gamestate will be whatever it would have been had A
been legal. There's no temporal alteration involved.

> Glotmorf
> 
> 

-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 22:01:55 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
	(Tuesday morning)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 4/30/02 at 10:02 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>> 
>> 
>>> As for the deletion, it couldn't happen, because, if a Charter Prop is
>>> determined to not be a proposal, there's no provision for modifying a
>> Charter
>>> Prop.  And if it's still a proposal, then it can't be modified after
>> voting
>>> started.  What you were looking for was something at the beginning that
>> said,
>>> "...then this proposal has no effect."
>> 
>> No, it can't be *revised* after voting. Thus, if it changes itself, that's
>> perfectly okay, by the same logic that says the admin can Rectify stuff
>> during Voting.
> 
> The logic that says the admin can rectify stuff during voting is the Typo
> rule.  There is no similar logic that allows a proposal to alter itself.
> There is no provision at all for proposals to be deleted.  Aside from a
> rectification to remove a typo, the only explicit logic present for changing a
> proposal is r19, which says proposals can only be revised by their original
> author (which the proposal isn't), and that proposals can't be revised during
> voting.  So either deleting a proposal is a form of revision, and thus
> regulated, or it's an un-explicitly-permitted change to the game state, and
> thus illegal.
> 
> Besides, since the statement that deletes the proposal is in the proposal,
> it'd only happen if the proposal actually passed.  It could only pass with
> those vote counts if it's a Charter Prop, in which case it can't delete itself
> because Charter Props weren't vested with that sort of authority.  If it
> failed, the deletion instruction in the proposal couldn't have been performed.
> 
> So the proposal is still there.  It may not have had any effect, but it's
> still there.
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 
By that logic, your own entropy circumvention prop. is illegal, as it
attempts to change its own text.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 22:21:01 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
  (Tuesday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/1/02 at 10:01 PM Wonko wrote:

>By that logic, your own entropy circumvention prop. is illegal, as it
>attempts to change its own text.
>-- 
>Wonko

No, because the proposal isn't trying to change itself...the result of the change will not be a different proposal. It's the text to be added to the ruleset that will be changed.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 22:48:57 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/1/02 at 9:56 PM Wonko wrote:

>Then the map is a physical representation of a fictitious territory; how
>could one possibly claim that the map *is* a fictitious territory?

Because the territory can't exist without the map.  Just as the quote can't exist without the quoted.

>No - to quote it is to repeat the same pattern of letters. Which I did.
>Whether or not the meaning is the same is entirely independant.
>
>Admittedly, a quote cannot be considered a quote without having something
>to
>quote from; however, it does not have to mean the same thing as the quoted
>passage.

Okay, forget the meaning.  Admittedly, r8 doesn't address meaning.  You could have done it ransom-note style like I did, and the collection of quoted words would probably not mean anything close to the things the words came from. (In fact, looking at your proposals now, it looks like you only needed to change, what, four words total?  So I gather you just did that whole quote-the-comment thang for either entertainment value or conceptual bench-testing? :)

>By your earlier definition of 'to quote' - "to repeat a brief passage or
>excerpt from", combined with the above logic, if I go [[this]], then the
>word "this" could never again have the force of law, as any usage of it
>would be a repetition of something which is quoted.

The word "this" could indeed have the force of law.  As long as it's not a quote from "[[this]]".  That's my point.  You could have had all those words in the comment, then repeated all those words outside the comment, and it wouldn't have violated r8. (Whether it'd've violated the entropy rule is another matter.)  But you linked the two by saying one was a quote from the other.

>The point is, it doesn't matter where text has been. What matters,
>according
>to r8, is whether or not the specific instance of text in question is, at
>that moment, encased in comment brackets. Although I may be quoting from a
>comment, the quote itself is not commented. The quote exists independantly
>of the text not quoted.

I don't follow that last sentence.  But r8 doesn't use the phrase "does not" or the phrase "can not", which would address "at that moment"; it uses the phrase "shall not" which addresses future uses as well as current ones.  Which means that when it's created as a comment it can't be used in rules, and when it's quoted from comments it still can't be used in rules.

						Glotmorf

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Becoming a player 
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 08:55:40 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I wish to become a player. Yay me. I've had a skim through the ruleset,
> and this looks like quite a fun nomic.
> 
 'lo rachel.

 I think I can be reasonably safe in saying that I've never heard of
rachel failing a turing test :).

 WC

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 09:16:44 +0100 (BST)
From: rachel walmsley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Becoming a player 
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 2 May 2002, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> > I wish to become a player. Yay me. I've had a skim through the ruleset,
> > and this looks like quite a fun nomic.
> >
>  'lo rachel.

'lo

>  I think I can be reasonably safe in saying that I've never heard of
> rachel failing a turing test :).

Well, there was that one time back in '95, but that was because I hadn't
revised properly and I'd been up all to late the night before playing
scrabble and...

omnes: *glare*

*ahem* sorry. Indeed not, but then if memory serves, I have met you irl
once, so...

I really ought to stop being surprised by coming across people that I know
in unexpected places (though I'm not sure this should count as unexpected
really, on second thoughts). Anyone else I know in here?

rw

-- 
http://www.quoth.org.uk/ - Quoth the Rachel...  /////
Bringing giant hedgehogs to the         ,   o__///////
common steamroller since 2001          O=O___\'///////___
"my foo's got no bar!" "then how does it baz?" "quux!"

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Becoming a player 
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 12:57:09 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >  I think I can be reasonably safe in saying that I've never heard of
> > rachel failing a turing test :). 
> Well, there was that one time back in '95, but that was because I hadn't
> revised properly and I'd been up all to late the night before playing
> scrabble and... 
> omnes: *glare*

 <giggles>

> *ahem* sorry. Indeed not, but then if memory serves, I have met you irl
> once, so...

 I believe so, yes.

> I really ought to stop being surprised by coming across people that I know
> in unexpected places (though I'm not sure this should count as unexpected
> really, on second thoughts). Anyone else I know in here?

 Oh, I'm resigned now to only ever meeting the same 1000 people again...

 WC.

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 07:36:11 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >"The map is not the territory". The quote is not the comment.
>
> These two statements do not have an analogous relationship.
> Except in the instance where both of them are wrong.
>
Well, this wasn't my argument, it was just a sort of aside at the end, but still...

> A map can in fact be a territory, if the territory is fictitious,
> an element of a novel.  In that instance, the territory does
> not exist except as defined by the story elements, one of
> which is an illustrative map.  Thus, the map is the territory,
> because the map defines the territory.
>
The map still isn't the territory. It's just a map of some "unreal" territory, which exists only in the novel (or the mind of the author, or whatever). You *might* have more of a point if you were talking about wargaming, but that would come down to how you're defining "map", and in any case it still wouldn't really be relevant. ;-)

> A quote of a comment is in fact the comment, repeated.
>
Yes. That's not under dispute. The problem is that the quote of the comment is not itself a comment.

Consider an analogy:
I say "Glotmorf eats babies". This constitutes slander (or libel, or whatever).
The Daily Planet reports that 'uin said today "Glotmorf eats babies".' This is in fact the slander, repeated. It is not itself slander. A quote of slander is not slander (because the law defines what slander is), just as a quote of a comment is not a comment (because the rules define what a comment is).

R8 is quite clear about what constitutes a comment. A comment is text in [[]]s. Wonko's proosals were not in [[]]s, and therefore were not comments.

A quote does not inherit anything from its source, except the actual text which is quoted. You're claiming otherwise, but I see nothing to support your position.

If I might further venture a pragmatic reason as to why, even if you weren't wrong, we'd want you to be:
If I were to post the phrase "[[create a rule]]" to the mailing list, and Wonko were to then use that phrase in a proosal, under your interpretation the effect of Wonko's proosal would depend on whether he was quoting me or not. If Wonko were to refuse to reveal that information, we would be unable to decide the gamestate. Worse, if I were to create a proosal which said "uin loses 300 points. Any points which are awarded to uin are destroyed.", after it passed I could then claim that the only words which were not quotes were "300 points are awarded to uin." Doubtless you'll claim that something's only a quote if you explicitly say that it is at the time. That's not supported by the rules.

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 11:27:44 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/2/02 at 7:36 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> A quote of a comment is in fact the comment, repeated.
>>
>Yes. That's not under dispute. The problem is that the quote of the
>comment is not itself a comment.
>
>Consider an analogy:
>I say "Glotmorf eats babies". This constitutes slander (or libel, or
>whatever).
>The Daily Planet reports that 'uin said today "Glotmorf eats babies".'
>This is in fact the slander, repeated. It is not itself slander. A quote
>of slander is not slander (because the law defines what slander is), just
>as a quote of a comment is not a comment (because the rules define what a
>comment is).

Bad example.  Slander is subjective.  I could sue the Daily Planet for that article, depending on the presentation.  It's been done.

>R8 is quite clear about what constitutes a comment. A comment is text in
>[[]]s. Wonko's proosals were not in [[]]s, and therefore were not comments.
>
>A quote does not inherit anything from its source, except the actual text
>which is quoted. You're claiming otherwise, but I see nothing to support
>your position.

A quote inherits one specific thing other than the text that's quoted: it inherits the fact that it came from such-and-such a source.  This is inherent in the quote; if it doesn't have the property that it came from a particular source, it's not a quote.

If it was just text, none of this would be a concern.  But it's a quote, which means it's tied to the original text.  And while I've seen repeated arguments about the delimiters which declare something to be a comment in the immediate term, no one seems to be addressing the future-perspective nature of the statement in r8, that comment text "shall not" have the force of rule.  Not that it can't right then, but that it can't later either.  Just because the quote of that text doesn't have brackets around it, that doesn't keep it from being the same text, as the claim of it being a quote indicates.  And that same text has been forbidden from becoming part of the rule set or carrying any authority.

If it wasn't claiming to be a quote, it wouldn't be a quote.  If it wasn't a quote, it wouldn't be the same text.  If it wasn't the same text, it wouldn't have the r8 restriction on it.

>If I might further venture a pragmatic reason as to why, even if you
>weren't wrong, we'd want you to be:
>If I were to post the phrase "[[create a rule]]" to the mailing list, and
>Wonko were to then use that phrase in a proosal, under your interpretation
>the effect of Wonko's proosal would depend on whether he was quoting me or
>not. If Wonko were to refuse to reveal that information, we would be
>unable to decide the gamestate. Worse, if I were to create a proosal which
>said "uin loses 300 points. Any points which are awarded to uin are
>destroyed.", after it passed I could then claim that the only words which
>were not quotes were "300 points are awarded to uin." Doubtless you'll
>claim that something's only a quote if you explicitly say that it is at
>the time. That's not supported by the rules.

Sure it is.  What makes something a quote is the tie-in to the original source; without that, it's not a quote.  You can claim something is a quote, sure, but that claim has to be at the very least on the public forum; that's as per r16.  If you make the claim after voting starts, that's trying to change a proposal after the start of voting; that's against r19.  Saying something in a proposal is a quote without saying it in the actual proposal is like claiming the proposal contains certain words without modifying the proposal; since there's no explicit means of doing that, that's covered by r393.

By the way...I did some research and found that all your proposals since the start of the game are in fact verbatim duplications of the writings of a 13th century monk.  He was reputed to be mad; he claimed to be having visions, but had no idea what they were visions of.  I do recall that the illuminated manuscript had these weird split-rectangle designs around the border...

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 23:55:11 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Eric Gerlach <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Who brought the booze?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey all, I'm back after moving (though I don't think I told anyone I was 
going :)

I know you've all moved on to more important things, but one thing about 
this prop bugged me:

At 01:14 AM 28/04/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Ah, freedom from Entropy. I will miss it... Time, then, for the next part 
>of my Plan. I give you, then, Phase II.
>{{
>__One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor__
><snip>
>  A player may pay 1d3 points for a glass of Cheap Wine, the drinking of 
> which will give them one Style point, or 2d4 points for a glass of Fine 
> Wine, the drinking of which will give them 1d5 Style points and one 
> Respect point.

I don't respect people who drink wine necessarily, and this wasn't what 
respect was designed for.  With that in mind my vote on this will likely be NO.

Bean

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Who brought the booze?
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 12:37:27 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Ah, freedom from Entropy. I will miss it... Time, then, for the next part
>of my Plan. I give you, then, Phase II.
>{{
>__One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor__
><snip>
>  A player may pay 1d3 points for a glass of Cheap Wine, the drinking of
>which will give them one Style point, or 2d4 points for a glass of Fine
>Wine, the drinking of which will give them 1d5 Style points and one
>Respect point.

I don't respect people who drink wine necessarily, and this wasn't what
respect was designed for.  With that in mind my vote on this will likely be 
NO.

Bean

-Right you are, but at the moment, there is only one point of Respect out 
there. I'm trying to use these nearly unused appendages the game has. Pray 
tell, what was Respect designed for?-

                                         -BvS-

I'm gonna go hide under my nuke-proof desk now.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel Lepage <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Commentary
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The point I'm trying to get across here is that quoted
text is *not* the original text. The original text
appeared in [[]]s and so it, according to r8, "shall
be considered "comment" text". However, the quote of
it is not the original text. It is a copy of it. The
copy is, quite obviously, *not* appearing within
double square brackets, and so, under the r8
definition of a comment, is not a comment. And so it
may have the Force of Rule.

But hey, if you don't like it, feel free to CFJ.

-- 
Wonko

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 20:04:19 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Commentary
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/2/02 at 12:23 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>The point I'm trying to get across here is that quoted
>text is *not* the original text. The original text
>appeared in [[]]s and so it, according to r8, "shall
>be considered "comment" text". However, the quote of
>it is not the original text. It is a copy of it. The
>copy is, quite obviously, *not* appearing within
>double square brackets, and so, under the r8
>definition of a comment, is not a comment. And so it
>may have the Force of Rule.
>
>But hey, if you don't like it, feel free to CFJ.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

I could do that...I'd been thinking about it...though I'd like to get a bigger swatch of opinions than we've had so far, to see if I'm the only one who actually sees what I'm talking about. (Always a scary idea.)

How would people feel overall about...a Judgment Prop?

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 20:22:39 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
	(Tuesday morning)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/1/02 at 10:01 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> By that logic, your own entropy circumvention prop. is illegal, as it
>> attempts to change its own text.
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> No, because the proposal isn't trying to change itself...the result of the
> change will not be a different proposal. It's the text to be added to the
> ruleset that will be changed.
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 
Well, it says, "In the text marked at front and back by @@@, change:"

Then there's text marked with @@@s. So whether or not you want it to change
itself, it says it's going to. Which is okay, because it's not a revision -
it doesn't 'reconsider' itself and then modify itself, it just modifies
itself.

-- 
Wonko

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Commentary 
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 02:22:47 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I could do that...I'd been thinking about it...though I'd like to get a>  bigger swatch of opinions than we've had so far, to see if I'm the only>  one who actually sees what I'm talking about. (Always a scary idea.)

 I think that I would be tempted to judge `True' on a CFJ stating your
argument, but I don't think I have much to add to it.

 WC.

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 22:22:03 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/3/02 at 1:56 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>UIN's latest entry in "World's Strangest CFJs" is 655, assigned to Wild
>Card.

Well, in that case I guess I won't let the one I'm thinking about bother me...since mine apparently aren't as strange as eirs.

>Rachel joins. I'm assuming eir chosen name is "Rachel" since e failed to
>specify otherwise. Welcome!

Please to re-calc entropy-imposed syllable limits?  In fact, can this be added to the roster?

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 09:39:23 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/3/02 at 12:45 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>Glotmorf's "comment text" CFJ is 660, assigned to The Reality Police. (oh,
>by the way, it's called "quoting out of context," and it's somewhat common
>among American politicians and religious leaders.)

I dunno, guy...Thinking about your proposal, would you rather have random judge assignments so you're not responsible for them, or would you want to try to pick an impartial judge on your own?

						Glotmorf

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday morning)
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 15:16:06 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Voice: when did you get 5 style points? I don't have them on record, so
>for the time being you can't purchase your desired Style Attribute. (Even
>if you had 5 points, you still couldn't do so - it's 3 points per word,
>for a cost of 12 points.)
>
>...dave

Well, I have 5 style buoy., but it's ok, I didn't know about the cost per 
word.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Problem in rule 9/0
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 18:02:54 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Rule 9/0 refers to http://www.nomic.net/~g6/die.php
This link is broken. The correct link is http://www.nomic.net/~g6/n2/die.php

I'm not actually playing ATM, but I hate to see a broken link.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE80wkO0ttqHj9RnJcRAunGAJ4wPWmCRSwu1ti9PqgdMyVMxqHjpQCffyBR
AHOjoCf5I9sHb+4YXgSX/RcÛ61
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 16:19:59 +0100 (BST)
From: rachel walmsley <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 3 May 2002, David E. Smith wrote:

> Rachel joins. I'm assuming eir chosen name is "Rachel" since e failed to
> specify otherwise. Welcome!

"rachel" in fact. I'm an awkward wossname who doesn't like capital
letters.

r"back from a weekend away and figuring out what game actions to
perform"w.

-- 
http://www.quoth.org.uk/ - Quoth the Rachel...  /////
Bringing giant hedgehogs to the         ,   o__///////
common steamroller since 2001          O=O___\'///////___
"my foo's got no bar!" "then how does it baz?" "quux!"

Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 17:40:24 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> Mr. A...In this public forum message from Wonko, there are large portions of
> text that don't have any *buzz* or *crackle* in them, despite Wonko's having
> the scarf, and despite the scarf rule saying "the player's posts must include
> *buzz* and *crackle* strings at random throughout".  I therefore state this
> message was not a valid public forum message, and thus not a valid source of
> quoting for later msgs. and props.

Did you read the msg? There are *buzz*'s and *crackle*'s throughout.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 17:44:32 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Actions
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth rachel walmsley,

> I declare myself to be female.
> 
> I position myself on the grid at square 11,5.
> I pick up the sheep gnome there.
> I move to square 12,6.
> 
> I hope that I've not misread any rules and got this all wrong.
> 
> rw.

You might also consider voting at some point...
-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 17:53:00 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> Mr. A...In this public forum message from Wonko, there are large portions of
> text that don't have any *buzz* or *crackle* in them, despite Wonko's having
> the scarf, and despite the scarf rule saying "the player's posts must include
> *buzz* and *crackle* strings at random throughout".  I therefore state this
> message was not a valid public forum message, and thus not a valid source of
> quoting for later msgs. and props.

"And here's our random number generator."

*NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE*

"Are you sure that's random?"

"That's the problem with randomness - you can never be sure."

-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 18:01:19 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: grid move
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> I run to (14,11).
> I buy a pinball gun.
> I shoot Wonko.

You don't run to (14,11) because its out of your range.
You don't shoot me because I'm out of your range.
You do lose 2 points on the Pinball Gun, though.

Hey, one out of three ain't bad.

-- 
Wonko

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Overview, anyone?
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 18:05:10 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Personally, I'd go insane trying to read all of the rules. Could anyone give 
me a breif overview?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE81v4W0ttqHj9RnJcRAtIFAJ4yShs6A+ILx4Xj1mk+PRthZRXl8gCeNbdP
bGy85UEQnG8yVnYYgATGnjoÜzi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 20:26:38 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/6/02 at 5:40 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> Mr. A...In this public forum message from Wonko, there are large
>portions of
>> text that don't have any *buzz* or *crackle* in them, despite Wonko's
>having
>> the scarf, and despite the scarf rule saying "the player's posts must
>include
>> *buzz* and *crackle* strings at random throughout".  I therefore state
>this
>> message was not a valid public forum message, and thus not a valid
>source of
>> quoting for later msgs. and props.
>
>
>Did you read the msg? There are *buzz*'s and *crackle*'s throughout.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

The message included the following:

>Change rule 348 to read:
>
>"There exists an entity called the Yeti. At the start of the 1st nday of
>each nweek, the Yeti moves three times to a random square which is not more
>than 8 units from the square e is in. When the Yeti leaves a square, that
>square becomes Frozen. Whenever a MO Moves into a Frozen square, it
>automatically makes an additional Move in the same direction it came from.
>Any square which has been Frozen for at least 1 nweek immediately ceases to
>be Frozen unless another rule prevents this."
>
>Remove the attribute Frozen from all grid squares.
>

While I am obliged to admit that randomness is by its very nature unpredictable, and that, yes, it is possible that a randomly *buzz/crackle*d text may in fact yield a block as large as this, I consider it (a) very highly unlikely, and (b) awful darn convenient that all four proposal texts went un-*buzz*ed.  Especially given the more typical distribution of static in the non-proposal blocks of text.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 23:45:53 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 14 RESULTS
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/7/02 at 3:24 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Proposal 645/0 (Wake Me When Yer Done, Dear) (Glotmorf):
>AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, Glotmorf, The Voice, Wild Card,
>ABS: Congenital Optimist, rachel,
>Counts: (5-0-2-0). Measure passes.
>Measure is vetoed by the Administrator.
>[[ Technical difficulties in implementation, and general pain-in-the-ass
>factor on the parts of everyone involved. This revision, as written, would
>lead to half-days and a whole lot of strangeness. May I suggest something
>like this to take its place:
>
>At the end of each nweek, a Writ of Delay for one day is automatically
>issued, without any action required on the part of the Administrator. If,
>at the end of that day, the results of the previous nweek's voting have
>not yet been issued by the Administrator, a Writ of More Delay (one day)
>is automatically issued. [[ This process intentionally cuts off after two
>days, so that the game won't get caught in an infinite loop that could
>conceivably circumvent even Rule Zero. ]]
>
>]]
>Glotmorf scores 9 points.

And what about the third day that the results don't appear?  I'm not saying it has happened; I'm not saying you would intentionally let it happen.  I'm saying it can happen.  Your computer dies.  You lose internet access.  Your new girlfriend's ex-boyfriend comes over and breaks your fingers, your legs and various other parts of your anatomy, and it takes more than a day to learn to type with your nose.

What sort of alternative that allows for an indefinite delay short of the seven-day timeout in Rule Zero might you consider?

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 03:54:19 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: vote result question
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quote from the nweek 14 ballot results:

Proposal 642/1 (Judicial Reform) (Wild Card):
AFF: Dan, Wild Card
ABS: Baron von Skippy, Congenital Optimist, rachel, The Voice
SHL: Glotmorf
Counts: (2-0-4-1). Measure fails. Wild Card loses 2 points.

Mr. A...Why did this proposal fail?  Were the abstentions counted as votes?

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 09:53:30 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business:
  IgivethesushitorandomlyselectedplayerGlotmorfuin.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/7/02 at 7:10 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>I give the sushi to randomly selected player Glotmorf
>
>uin. 

Oboy.  I have the sushi AND the token of proposals.  Twice the gibberish in half the time. :)

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi.
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 12:23:14 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > <CFJ>
 > <statement>It cannot be determined whether this statement appears within 
a lega
 > l CFJ.</statement>
 > <defendant>Baron von Skippy</defendant>
 > <analysis>
 > I have the sushi. If I ran this through babelfish as one big word and 
added the
 >  whitespace afterwards, it's legal. If I didn't, it's not.
 >
 > I'm not telling.
 > </analysis>
 > </CFJ>

  First - I Call for Judgement, with the statement delimited by {{ and
|| and the analysis proceeding from that || and delimited by }}:

{{
  The game has never had an object numbered 655.
||
  Baron von Skippy had the sushi.

  Baron von Skippy's message implies that he sushified the text:
<CFJ><statement>ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalCFJ.</statement><defendant>BaronvonSkippy</defendant><analysis>Ihavethesushi.IfIranthisthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterwards,it'slegal.IfIdidn't,it'snot.I'mnottelling.</analysis></CFJ>uin.
  then added whitespace and linebreaks.

  However sushifying it via Korean produces the text:
Inside a Korean

  sushifying it via French and German produces the text:
ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalCFJ.BaronvonSkippyIhavethesushi.IfIranthisthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterwards,
it' slegal. IfIdidn' T, it' snot.I' mnottelling.uin.

  Neither of these two can be turned into the message sent by adding
only whitespace and linebreaks, therefore he failed to operate
sushification correctly and so the CFJ #655 never existed.
}}

  In the thread where that CFJ is found to be false I judge CFJ 655 to
be False (citing the above analysis).

  WC.

-Brilliant, Holmes, but you forgot one detail. I didn't have the Sushi, nor 
did I CFJ. I was the defendant, for the express purpose of keeping me from 
Judging. I can't tell, does that invalidate your Judgement? I hope not...

Oh, and isn't there a penalty for not Sushifiing a public form message, as 
WC has just proven you to have done, uin?-

                                             -BvS-

I'm gonna go hide under my nuke-proof desk now.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi. 
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 17:46:20 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > -Brilliant, Holmes, but you forgot one detail. I didn't have the Sushi, nor 
> > did I CFJ. I was the defendant, for the express purpose of keeping me from 
> > Judging. I can't tell, does that invalidate your Judgement? I hope not...
> > 
>  Err, it should be obvious what I meant...
> 
 No, it's worse than that Jim - entropy.  Here goes again...
...

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 12:08:04 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> -Brilliant, Holmes, but you forgot one detail. I didn't have the Sushi, nor 
> did I CFJ. I was the defendant, for the express purpose of keeping me from 
> Judging. I can't tell, does that invalidate your Judgement? I hope not...
>
Actually, while you may assume that was the purpose of your defendancy, I have yet to comment on the matter. And no, it doesn't invalidate the judgement. It wasn't even in the judgement, only in the second CFJ, and even then only in the analysis.

> Oh, and isn't there a penalty for not Sushifiing a public form message, as 
> WC has just proven you to have done, uin?-
>
Penalty? Well, the CFJ never existed... other than that, perhaps you should read the rules?

I don't think I'll bother reaquiring the sushi and resubmitting in an actually ambiguous form. If you (generic you, not BvS-specific you) don't get the point from this one, I don't think that would help. Although I might do it anyway.

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 17:03:16 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 14 RESULTS
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/7/02 at 3:24 AM David E. Smith wrote:
> 
>> Proposal 649/0 (A Piece of the Action) (Glotmorf):
>> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Wild Card (13)
>> NEG: Dan, rachel, The Voice
>> ABS: Congenital Optimist
>> Counts: (3-3-1-0). Measure fails. Glotmorf loses 2 points.
>> [[ I know it's a Charter Proposal, but it still fails, for the same
>> reasons "Fight Club" failed last nweek. Someone should consider fixing
>> that at some stage. Just a note in Rule 631 that "This rule supercedes
>> Rule thirtysomething as regards vote counting" would suffice, as would a
>> revision to rule thirty-whatever that specifically exempts Charter
>> Proposals. ]]
> 
> Rule 631 supercedes (quote from adm. msg.) Rule 32 right now.  Rule 32's
> chutzpah is 1; Rule 631's chutzpah is 2.
> 
> Besides, as I said before, a Charter Prop isn't a prop.  It's only "like" a
> prop.
> 
> The reason the Fight Club Charter Prop failed was that the Charter Prop rule
> didn't exist at the time that votes were counted.  That's not the case now.

Now the case is that it does nothing because the rules providing for what
happens when a 'Charter Prop' passes don't seem to exist.

The upside is that Glotmorf doesn't lose any points.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 17:04:01 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 14 RESULTS
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> 
> Proposal 623/0 (We can't speak properl... uh... right...) (Bean):
> AFF: rachel
> NEG: Baron von Skippy, Dan, Glotmorf, The Voice
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> SHL: Wild Card
> Counts: (1-4-1-1). Measure fails. Bean loses 4 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 624/1 (I want to run now!) (The Voice):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, The Voice, Wild Card
> NEG: Glotmorf, rachel
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> Counts: (4-2-1-0). Measure passes.
> Created 301/6 (rectified: replace abbrevs. with complete words).
> The Voice scores 12 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 642/1 (Judicial Reform) (Wild Card):
> AFF: Dan, Wild Card
> ABS: Baron von Skippy, Congenital Optimist, rachel, The Voice
> SHL: Glotmorf
> Counts: (2-0-4-1). Measure fails. Wild Card loses 2 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 643/1 (One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor) (Baron von
> Skippy):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, The Voice
> NEG: rachel
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> SHL: Glotmorf, Wild Card
> Counts: (3-1-1-2). Measure fails. Measure is shelved.
> Created 661/0 (proposal).
> 
> 
> Proposal 644/3 (New Gnome Mixes) (Wonko):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, rachel, The Voice, Wild Card
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> Counts: (5-0-1-0). Measure passes.
> Created 638/1.
> Wonko scores 8 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 645/0 (Wake Me When Yer Done, Dear) (Glotmorf):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, Glotmorf, The Voice, Wild Card,
> ABS: Congenital Optimist, rachel,
> Counts: (5-0-2-0). Measure passes.
> Measure is vetoed by the Administrator.
> [[ Technical difficulties in implementation, and general pain-in-the-ass
> factor on the parts of everyone involved. This revision, as written, would
> lead to half-days and a whole lot of strangeness. May I suggest something
> like this to take its place:
> 
> At the end of each nweek, a Writ of Delay for one day is automatically
> issued, without any action required on the part of the Administrator. If,
> at the end of that day, the results of the previous nweek's voting have
> not yet been issued by the Administrator, a Writ of More Delay (one day)
> is automatically issued. [[ This process intentionally cuts off after two
> days, so that the game won't get caught in an infinite loop that could
> conceivably circumvent even Rule Zero. ]]
> 
> ]]
> Glotmorf scores 9 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 646/0 (To Fix Dim Ships?) (Glotmorf):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, Glotmorf, The Voice
> NEG: Wild Card
> ABS: Congenital Optimist, rachel
> Counts: (4-1-2-0). Measure passes.
> Created 493/2.
> Glotmorf scores 10 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 647/1 (Walking the line) (Baron von Skippy):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, Glotmorf, rachel, The Voice, Wild Card
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> Counts: (6-0-1-0). Measure passes.
> Created 394/10.
> Created 662/0.
> Baron von Skippy scores 14 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 648/0 (Buzz) (Rob):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan
> NEG: rachel, The Voice
> ABS: Congenital Optimist, Glotmorf, Wild Card
> Counts: (2-2-3-0). Measure fails. Rob loses 3 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 649/0 (A Piece of the Action) (Glotmorf):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Wild Card (13)
> NEG: Dan, rachel, The Voice
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> Counts: (3-3-1-0). Measure fails. Glotmorf loses 2 points.
> [[ I know it's a Charter Proposal, but it still fails, for the same
> reasons "Fight Club" failed last nweek. Someone should consider fixing
> that at some stage. Just a note in Rule 631 that "This rule supercedes
> Rule thirtysomething as regards vote counting" would suffice, as would a
> revision to rule thirty-whatever that specifically exempts Charter
> Proposals. ]]
> 
> 
> Proposal 650/0 (Ruleset Restructuring #1 - The Really, really,
> brand-spankin' New *buzz* Yeti!) (Wonko):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, rachel, The Voice
> NEG: Wild Card
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> Counts: (4-1-1-0). Measure passes.
> Created 348/4.
> Removed all Frozen squares from the Grid, per dictate. (Whee!)
> Wonko scores 11 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 651/0 (Ruleset Restructuring #2 - Vote Changing) (Wonko):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, rachel, The Voice
> NEG: Wild Card
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> Counts: (4-1-1-0). Measure passes.
> Created 30/1.
> Created 31/4 (repeal).
> [[ I can't rewrite history, but it doesn't matter. Nothing that happened
> before nweek 14, nday 3, can be CFJ'd, and there were no vote revisions on
> the present ballot. ]]
> Wonko scores 9 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 652/0 (Ruleset Restructuring #3 - Last-Minute Revisions) (Wonko):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, rachel, The Voice
> NEG: Wild Card
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> Counts: (4-1-1-0). Measure passes.
> Created 19/5.
> Wonko scores 14 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 653/0 (Ruleset Restructuring #4 - The Ballot) (Wonko):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, The Voice
> NEG: rachel, Wild Card
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> Counts: (3-2-1-0). Measure passes.
> Created 23/1.
> Wonko scores 11 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 654/0 (Thirsty?) (Baron von Skippy):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, Glotmorf, The Voice, Wild Card
> NEG: rachel
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> Counts: (5-1-1-0). Measure passes.
> Created 663/0.
> Created 638/2.
> Baron von Skippy scores 11 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 656/0 (Hey, He Took My Handbag!) (The Voice):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, rachel, The Voice, Wild Card
> NEG: Dan
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> Counts: (5-1-1-0). Measure passes.
> No effect (per 293/6, this proposal does nothing).
> The Voice scores 15 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 657/0 (Nweek 14 Hole Plugs) (Glotmorf):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, Glotmorf, The Voice, Wild Card
> ABS: Congenital Optimist, rachel
> Counts: (5-0-2-0). Measure passes.
> Created 440/5.
> Created 631/1.
> Glotmorf scores 6 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 658/0 (Cut on the Dotted Line) (Glotmorf):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Wild Card
> NEG: Dan, The Voice
> ABS: Congenital Optimist
> SHL: rachel
> Counts: (3-2-1-1). Measure fails. Glotmorf loses 2 points.
> 
> 
> Proposal 659/0 (Make Things Work) (The Administrator):
> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, rachel, The Voice
> NEG: Glotmorf
> ABS: Congenital Optimist, Wild Card
> Counts: (4-1-2-0). Measure passes.
> Created 127/2.
> Created 573/2.
> The Gremlin Fund scores 13 points.
> 

Dude... I voted...  ?!?

-- 
Wonko

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi. 
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 22:30:51 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I don't think I'll bother reaquiring the sushi and resubmitting in an actuall
> y ambiguous form. If you (generic you, not BvS-specific you) don't get the po
> int from this one, I don't think that would help. Although I might do it anyw
> ay.

 IMHO any action indistinguishable from a legal action is legal.

 WC.

--
 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. [Mt7:20]

Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 19:19:30 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: One last action
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/7/02 at 5:14 PM Wonko wrote:

>Just so that nobody can find further fault with my action...
>
>
>If e is within my range, and I have a Pinball gun, I shoot the Voice with
>my
>Pinball gun.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Good one.  The Pinball Gun rule has a lower number than the Siren rule, so the shot takes priority over the ZOE.

Pity Bean crashed on us...E coulda shot The Voice the other way. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 19:20:30 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 14 RESULTS
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/7/02 at 5:03 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/7/02 at 3:24 AM David E. Smith wrote:
>> 
>>> Proposal 649/0 (A Piece of the Action) (Glotmorf):
>>> AFF: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Wild Card (13)
>>> NEG: Dan, rachel, The Voice
>>> ABS: Congenital Optimist
>>> Counts: (3-3-1-0). Measure fails. Glotmorf loses 2 points.
>>> [[ I know it's a Charter Proposal, but it still fails, for the same
>>> reasons "Fight Club" failed last nweek. Someone should consider fixing
>>> that at some stage. Just a note in Rule 631 that "This rule supercedes
>>> Rule thirtysomething as regards vote counting" would suffice, as would a
>>> revision to rule thirty-whatever that specifically exempts Charter
>>> Proposals. ]]
>> 
>> Rule 631 supercedes (quote from adm. msg.) Rule 32 right now.  Rule 32's
>> chutzpah is 1; Rule 631's chutzpah is 2.
>> 
>> Besides, as I said before, a Charter Prop isn't a prop.  It's only
>"like" a
>> prop.
>> 
>> The reason the Fight Club Charter Prop failed was that the Charter Prop
>rule
>> didn't exist at the time that votes were counted.  That's not the case
>now.
>
>Now the case is that it does nothing because the rules providing for what
>happens when a 'Charter Prop' passes don't seem to exist.
>
>The upside is that Glotmorf doesn't lose any points.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Like I said before, the Administrator already set a precedent by putting one Society rule on a separate webpage, so there's a place to put the Charter Prop too.

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi.
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 21:18:30 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>-Brilliant, Holmes, but you forgot one detail. I didn't have the Sushi, nor
 > did I CFJ. I was the defendant, for the express purpose of keeping me 
from
 > Judging. I can't tell, does that invalidate your Judgement? I hope not...
 >
Actually, while you may assume that was the purpose of your defendancy, I 
have yet to comment on the matter. And no, it doesn't invalidate the 
judgement. It wasn't even in the judgement, only in the second CFJ, and even 
then only in the analysis.

-I wasn't aware I was waiting for your comments. As I'm never involved in 
these things, I can only assume that you don't want me to Judge. There are 
three possible reasons I see. 1) You don't like the decisions I make. Fair 
enough. This little trick of yours is still slimy, but at least I understand 
your motives. 2) You don't like my analyses. I'm going to stop analyzing. I 
find it difficult to put my thoughts on the matter into words. 3) You don't 
like me. *shrug* I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and think 
it's the second one. Feel free to not correct me.-

                                            -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Oops
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 21:20:22 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I *buzz* shoot Voice with my *crack.* P. gun

--
Wonk.
*buzz*

-Can you shoot me with your crack gun?-

                                         -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 23:33:07 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Scarf!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/7/02 at 5:11 PM Wonko wrote:

>I know e just *crackle* had it, but *buzz*, I can't resist. E's already
>got
>the *bzzzt* Token and the *crackle* sushi...
>
>I give the *buzz* scarf to Glormorf.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Thilly boy!  You jutht like theeing me in it.  Perthonally, I think there'th otherth who'd look jutht *darling* in it; I'll have to dethide between them nectht nweek...

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 03:26:32 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 14 RESULTS
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/7/02 at 3:24 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Proposal 645/0 (Wake Me When Yer Done, Dear) (Glotmorf):
>AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, Glotmorf, The Voice, Wild Card,
>ABS: Congenital Optimist, rachel,
>Counts: (5-0-2-0). Measure passes.
>Measure is vetoed by the Administrator.

Mithter A...I reviewed the Vote Counting rule (r30) and the Propothal Pathage rule (r32).

R30 readth, "Players may abstain from voting on a given issue by not submitting a vote on that issue or by explicitly indicating their abstention. Explicit abstentions shall be treated like votes during Voting, but when Voting has ended, they shall be treated as if the player had not submitted a vote."

Thith meanth, ath far ath vote-counting ith contherned, Abthtain voteth don't ecthitht.  Therefore, for vote-counting, there were only five voteth on p645, all affirmative.

R32 readth, "If the Administrator is not a player, e may veto a proposal by stating that e does so on a public forum. If a proposal is vetoed in this manner, but at least 3/4 of the votes counted for it were affirmative, the veto has no effect. Otherwise, the proposal is deemed to have failed."

Thith meanth, thinthe p645 got 5/5 of the voteth on it ath affirmative, and thinthe 5/5 ith more than 3/4, the veto hath no effect.

Thith thouldn't be all that hard to do...Whenever you get the final rethulth of a nweek pothted, you jutht thet the nday back to 1 and let it iterate on from there.  Ath RealPol liketh to thay, the webpage ithn't the gamethtate...ith jutht an ecthprethion of the gamethtate.  If the gamethtate ith that ith now nday 1 inthtead of nday 3 or nday 5, you're jutht correcting the clock.

						Glotmorf
						(lithping yet again)

Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:52:59 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/8/02 at 3:37 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>I propose:
>{{
> {{
>  __Consent of Ministers__ {*Minister,1*}
>
>  Any player who holds a title that makes them a Minister may cause
>themselves to lose that title by announcing in a public forum that
>they wish to take on the post of the Chiltern Hundreds.
>
> Any player nominated for any Ministry may repudiate that nomination
>at any time by annoucing that they do so in a public forum.
> }}
>}}

Um...the wha'?

						Glotmorf

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi.
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 15:14:16 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 07 May 2002 05:30 pm, you wrote:
> > I don't think I'll bother reaquiring the sushi and resubmitting in an
> > actuall y ambiguous form. If you (generic you, not BvS-specific you)
> > don't get the po int from this one, I don't think that would help.
> > Although I might do it anyw ay.
>
>  IMHO any action indistinguishable from a legal action is legal.

Well, given the nature of this nomic, it wouldn't seem unusual for that to be 
a Rule... :)

Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 23:49:56 +0100 (BST)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >
> >  Any player who holds a title that makes them a Minister may cause
> >themselves to lose that title by announcing in a public forum that
> >they wish to take on the post of the Chiltern Hundreds.
> 
> Um...the wha'?

The Chiltern Hundreds is classed as "an office of profit under the
crown", hence a (british) MP who is given the office cannot remain an
MP (it being a confilict of intrest). 
Being appointed to the Chiltern Hundereds or the Master of the Manor of
Northstead (a couple of fields in Yorkshire) are basically the only
ways that an MP can stop being an MP (except by not standng at a
general election, or by dieing, or by becomeing a Lord) 

cheers,
Iain, a font of useless information
(also see www.parliment.uk/commons/lib/fs34.pdf, for a fact sheet)

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 20:04:44 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I propose:
{{
 {{
  __Consent of Ministers__ {*Minister,1*}

  Any player who holds a title that makes them a Minister may cause
themselves to lose that title by announcing in a public forum that
they wish to take on the post of the Chiltern Hundreds.

 Any player named for any Ministry may disavow that naming at any time
by annoucing that they do so in a public forum. 
 }}
}}

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 20:00:00 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> On 5/8/02 at 3:37 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> 
> >I propose:
> >{{
> > {{
> >  __Consent of Ministers__ {*Minister,1*}
> >
> >  Any player who holds a title that makes them a Minister may cause
> >themselves to lose that title by announcing in a public forum that
> >they wish to take on the post of the Chiltern Hundreds.
> >
> > Any player nominated for any Ministry may repudiate that nomination
> >at any time by annoucing that they do so in a public forum.
> > }}
> >}}
> 
> Um...the wha'?
> 
 Oops - `nominated' and `repudiate' have 4 syllables...

 ...lets try again.

 And to quote from a UK parliament fact sheet:

Under a Resolution of the House of 2 March 1623, Members of Parliament
cannot directly resign their seat. Death, disqualification, elevation
to the Peerage, dissolution or expulsion are the only causes by which
a Member's seat can be vacated. Therefore a Member wishing to resign
has to go through the process of applying for a paid office of the
Crown, which automatically disqualifies the Member from holding a seat
in the House of Commons. There are two such offices: Crown Steward and
Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northstead.

 WC

Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 21:45:20 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal 
From: Daniel Lepage <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan David Amery,

> I propose:
> {{
> {{
> __Consent of Ministers__ {*Minister,1*}
> 
> Any player who holds a title that makes them a Minister may cause
> themselves to lose that title by announcing in a public forum that
> they wish to take on the post of the Chiltern Hundreds.
> 
> Any player named for any Ministry may disavow that naming at any time
> by annoucing that they do so in a public forum.
> }}
> }}

Stick an 'n' in announcing and send this to business.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 00:29:27 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/8/02 at 9:43 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>Let me know if any of this doesn't work.
>
>{{
>__A Fix for Glotmorf__
>
>If proposal 561 passed, repeal the rule entitle _Insta-Rules_ and take from
>Glotmorf all points e gained for the proposal's passing. If proposal 561
>failed, give back to Glotmorf all points e lost for its failure.
>
>[[Just a bit of cleanup.]]
>
>Then, create the following rule:
>
>{{ _Insta-Rules_
>
>There exist objects called Insta-Rules. Insta-Rules must conform to the
>following format:
>
>{ It is { legal | illegal } to { { { throw at | give to | take from } {
>players | grid locations | <specific player> | <specific grid location> } {
>gremlins | beer cans | gnomes } } | { { enter | remain in | enter or remain
>in } <specific grid location> [ without bouncing Elbonia-style ] } } }.
>
>where { and } delimit a set from which one item must be chosen, or a member
>of a set; [ and ] delimit optional text; and < and > delimit a category of
>information to be filled in.
>
>If an Insta-Rule says that a player may take an object from another player,
>then the player in question may take that object if and only if e is in a
>square consecutive to the one containing the player to be taken from, or
>both players are in Limbo.
>
>If an Insta-Rule forbids a player to perform a certain action, then e may
>not perform that action.
>
>If an Insta-Rule permits a player to perform a certain action, then e may
>perform that action.
>
>If an Insta-Rule forbids a player to remain in a certain square without
>being thrown Elbonia-style, and a player occupies that square at the end of
>an nweek, then that player is thrown at eir current location Elbonia-style.
>
>If an Insta-Rule forbids a player to remain in a certain square, but does
>not mention Elbonia-style, and a player occupies that square at the end of
>an nweek, then that player is moved to a random square consecutive to eir
>location. If this is impossible, e is moved to Limbo.
>
>Insta-Rules are identified as such, and must be unique from other
>currently-existing Insta-Rules. Insta-Rules take precedence over other
>Insta-Rules created before them.
>
>Each Player has an attribute called Insta-Ruler, with an initial value of
>0.
>At the beginning of each nweek, if a Player's Insta-Ruler is greater than
>0,
>it is decreased by 1.
>
>Once per nweek, if a Player's Insta-Ruler is 5 or less, e can declare an
>Insta-Ruling, which consists of one of the following:
>
>1. the enactment of an Insta-Rule
>2. the repeal of an existing Insta-Rule
>
>Insta-Rulings are implemented at the end of the nweek; at that time, the
>Insta-Ruler of the Player who made the Insta-Ruling is increased by 2.
>
>}}
>Give the aforementioned rule a Chutzpah of 5.
>
>Give 3d6 points to Glotmorf. [['Cause it is eir rule, after all]]
>}}
>
>-- 
>Wonko

The only problem I have with all thith is the "at the end of the nweek" bit.  I'd envithioned inthta-ruleth ath being a bit more inthta than that.  Ethpetially now that grid moveth are inthtant upon recognithion.  I actually thaw Player A making an inthta-rule that thaid the plathe where Player B wath thtanding couldn't be remained in, and zango! Player B wath outa there.

I wouldn't want to thee longer than two ndayth, the thame ath Gremball.  I'd prefer inthtant, but if that'th not at all actheptable, how about: Pending grid moveth are recognized before pending inthta-ruleth go into effect.

						Glotmorf

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday morning) 
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 17:57:40 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Wild Card can't move to (2,17) as e is already there. :)

 Oh, err... <brain dies>
 
> "Consent of Ministers" is 668/0. (the wha'? I'm assuming the Chiltern
> Hundreds is some Britishism of which I'm wholly unaware.)
 
> "Consent of Ministers" is 670/0. (Why Wild Card is making two identical
> proposals is somewhat beyond me... it's been seen on -business twice, and
> the second appearance wasn't listed as a revision, so I'm obliged to treat
> it as a second proposal.)

 The original contained two four syllable words.  (err, <looks in
archive> `nominated' and `repudiate')  Since I'm over the
three-syllable limit I believe this means that the original wasn't a
post to a public forum and hence fails to be a proposal.

 If this analysis is incorrect then I'll revise one of them to
something more interesting.

 WC.

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 18:43:23 +0100 (BST)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Hewwo.....
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 9 May 2002, Paul Smits wrote:
> 
> I, heretofore known as Aslan, wish to become a member of this game (if 
> that's the right word). 

Welcome.

>I vow that I shall be quiet and respectful until I 
> have a better feel for the intricacies of the rules, at which point I shall 
> wreak vengeance on everyone with a vowel in eir name. Or not. Only time will 
> tell. Do we have time?
> 
Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so. We do have a Clock and a
Watch, if thats any use...

cheers,
Iain

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:05:28 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revise proposal 674
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/9/02 at 6:07 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>I revise proposal 674 by:
>a) changing the title to __Ministry of the Survey for Ordinance__
>[[Since the Ordinance Survey was originally the group who did Surveys
>  for the benefits of Big Guns (i.e. change `of' to `for')]]
>b) adding a paragraph before the last one with the following text:
>{{
> Only the Admin is supposed to know why Shiny Things and Scary Dark
> Things are, therefore the Minister of the Ordinance Survey should
> make it clear when they recognise player moves so that the Admin can
> harf the effects of Shiny and Scary Things easily.  The Minister of
> the Ordinance Survey should also make such changes to their
> record of the Grid that the Admin requests that relate to Shiny and
> Scary Things.
>}}

Um..."harf"?

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:10:25 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/9/02 at 4:47 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>Wonko: I carefully searched both my archives of the business list and my
>personal mail spool; if you voted, your votes got lost on the way.
>(Rectified: Aha! You sent your votes from an unfamiliar email address. I
>just saw "Daniel" and mistakenly listed your votes under "Dan" who is on
>leave anyway. All the votes that say "Dan" in nweek 14's results are
>actually Wonko's votes. Thanks for messing with my head, man...)

You didna happen to see Bean's votes in there too, did you?  I didn't think e'd fail to vote, no matter how many Dos Equis e had on Sunday...

						Glotmorf

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revise proposal 674
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:16:38 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revise proposal 674
>Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:05:28 -0400
>
>On 5/9/02 at 6:07 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>
> >I revise proposal 674 by:
> >a) changing the title to __Ministry of the Survey for Ordinance__
> >[[Since the Ordinance Survey was originally the group who did Surveys
> >  for the benefits of Big Guns (i.e. change `of' to `for')]]
> >b) adding a paragraph before the last one with the following text:
> >{{
> > Only the Admin is supposed to know why Shiny Things and Scary Dark
> > Things are, therefore the Minister of the Ordinance Survey should
> > make it clear when they recognise player moves so that the Admin can
> > harf the effects of Shiny and Scary Things easily.  The Minister of
> > the Ordinance Survey should also make such changes to their
> > record of the Grid that the Admin requests that relate to Shiny and
> > Scary Things.
> >}}
>
>Um..."harf"?
>
>						Glotmorf
>
>

And, "why Shiny Things and Scary Dark Things are"?

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday morning)
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:20:32 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday 
>morning)
>Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:10:25 -0400
>
>On 5/9/02 at 4:47 PM David E. Smith wrote:
>
> >Wonko: I carefully searched both my archives of the business list and my
> >personal mail spool; if you voted, your votes got lost on the way.
> >(Rectified: Aha! You sent your votes from an unfamiliar email address. I
> >just saw "Daniel" and mistakenly listed your votes under "Dan" who is on
> >leave anyway. All the votes that say "Dan" in nweek 14's results are
> >actually Wonko's votes. Thanks for messing with my head, man...)
>
>You didna happen to see Bean's votes in there too, did you?  I didn't think 
>e'd fail to vote, no matter how many Dos Equis e had on Sunday...
>
>						Glotmorf
>
>

Wasn't e on leave, though?

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:21:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Proposal [was: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ:
	Schrodinger's sushi. ]
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan David Amery,

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Tuesday 07 May 2002 05:30 pm, you wrote:
>>>> I don't think I'll bother reaquiring the sushi and resubmitting in an
>>>> actuall y ambiguous form. If you (generic you, not BvS-specific you)
>>>> don't get the po int from this one, I don't think that would help.
>>>> Although I might do it anyw ay.
>>> 
>>> IMHO any action indistinguishable from a legal action is legal.
>> 
>> Well, given the nature of this nomic, it wouldn't seem unusual for that to
>> be> a Rule... :)
> 
> <grins>
> 
> Proposal:
> {{
> {{
> __The rule of simple__
> {*11*}
> [[To quote my text above:]]
> any action indistinguishable from a legal action is legal
> }}
> }}

Um... Indistinguishable is 6 syll.

-- 
Wonko

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposal [was: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi. ] 
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:43:39 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Um... Indistinguishable is 6 syll.

 But was quoted from a message from another player.

 WC.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revise proposal 674 
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:45:19 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Um..."harf"?
> 
http://www.sonic.net/~mueller4/jenny/nomic/axiom/harf.html

 WC.

 (I agree about the mistake, but I want to see if people are happy
with `harf' first).

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 17:02:12 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Actions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 02:18:37PM -0500, Karin L. Kross wrote:
> 
> I jump off the Grid into Limbo.

I highly doubt that you can do that.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 19:18:12 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposal [was: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business:
  CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi. ]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/9/02 at 9:43 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>> Um... Indistinguishable is 6 syll.
>
> But was quoted from a message from another player.
>
> WC.

Was it a public forum message?  Spoon-discuss messages aren't officially recognized.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 19:19:18 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
  (Thursday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/9/02 at 3:20 PM The Voice wrote:

>>You didna happen to see Bean's votes in there too, did you?  I didn't
>think 
>>e'd fail to vote, no matter how many Dos Equis e had on Sunday...
>>
>>						Glotmorf
>>
>>
>
>Wasn't e on leave, though?
>
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

Not until after votes were counted.

						Glotmorf

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposal [was: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business:  CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi. ]
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 19:16:14 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thursday 09 May 2002 07:18 pm, you wrote:
> On 5/9/02 at 9:43 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> >> Um... Indistinguishable is 6 syll.
> >
> > But was quoted from a message from another player.
> >
> > WC.
>
> Was it a public forum message?  Spoon-discuss messages aren't officially
> recognized.
>
> 						Glotmorf

spoon-discuss

I haven't 'officially' started playing, I'm lurking-ish here first, to learn 
the basics.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE82wM/0ttqHj9RnJcRAisYAJwMW70pB82bs2Mpl1IEGhdhBUCcggCfYjf5
h+PRRy2GUT5kdLd6x4PldYc›to
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposal [was: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Schrodinger's sushi. ] 
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 00:30:48 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > > But was quoted from a message from another player.
> > Was it a public forum message?  Spoon-discuss messages aren't officially
> > recognized.
> spoon-discuss

 If spoon-discuss messages quoted don't count then the message didn't
happen for reasons of the quoting being problamatical anyway. :(

 Does someone else with less entropy want to propose that?  I really
think that is the most succinct way of stating it.

 WC.

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 20:29:32 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: cfj 666
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Naath Thabana,

> Statement: The game has never had an object numbered
> 655. 
> 
> Analysis: 
> 
> The Reality Police had the sushi.
> 
> The Reality Police's message implies that he sushified
> the text: 
> 
> 
<CFJ><statement<ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalC
FJ> .
> </statement><defendant>BaronvonSkippy</defendant><analysis>Ihavethesushi.IfIra
> nth
> isthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterwards,it'slegal.IfIdid
> n'
> t,it'snot.I'mnottelling.</analysis></CFJ>uin.
> 
> then added whitespace and linebreaks.
> 
> However sushifying it via Korean produces the text:
> Inside a Korean 
> 
> sushifying it via French and German produces the text:
> 
> ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalCFJ.BaronvonSkippyI
> ha
> vethesushi.IfIranthisthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterwar
> ds
> , it' slegal. IfIdidn' T, it' snot.I' mnottelling.uin.
> 
> 
> Neither of these two can be turned into the message
> sent by adding only whitespace and linebreaks,
> therefore he failed to operate sushification correctly
> and so the CFJ #655 never existed.
> 
> Judgement
> dunno
> 
> why?
> 
> because I said so!
> I accept that the object labeled CFJ 655 is/was not a
> CFJ, since it wasn't a legal post (on buisness forum
> by player with sushi... unsusified).
> 
> Also there is no rule 655.
> 
> However I do not know if there has ever been an object
> so numbered in the past.
> 
> If I'm stupid, and the system goes, give it the next
> number up and we can only use each number once then
> this CFI is TRUE.

'dunno' hardly counts as a judgment. But you're right. There was an object
655, because if uin's CFJ was illegal, then I believe the next thing that
gets recognized, be it proposal, rule, or CFJ, must be 655 instead.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 20:31:14 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Hewwo.....
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Paul Smits,

> I, heretofore known as Aslan, wish to become a member of this game (if
> that's the right word). I vow that I shall be quiet and respectful until I
> have a better feel for the intricacies of the rules, at which point I shall
> wreak vengeance on everyone with a vowel in eir name. Or not. Only time will
> tell. Do we have time?

That's a very interesting question... How do you define time?

Welcome aboard, by the way ;)

-- 
Wonko

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday morning)
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:02:20 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The Reality Police gives the Sushi to Glotmorf. (mmm. sushi. Remember to
dilute the wasabi with the soy sauce or else it'll burn something fierce.)

-*shocked* Dilute wasabi? How dare you? That's the best decongestant in the 
world... It can also be used (well, the fumes, anyway), to thin paint and as 
an alternative fuel source in jet planes.-

                                      -BvS-
                              Making things up since 1992

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:13:17 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: cfj 666
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/9/02 at 8:29 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Naath Thabana,
>
>> Statement: The game has never had an object numbered
>> 655. 
>> 
>> Analysis: 
>> 
>> The Reality Police had the sushi.
>> 
>> The Reality Police's message implies that he sushified
>> the text: 
>> 
>> 
><CFJ><statement<ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalC
>FJ> .
>>
></statement><defendant>BaronvonSkippy</defendant><analysis>Ihavethesushi.IfIra
>> nth
>>
>isthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterwards,it'slegal.IfIdid
>> n'
>> t,it'snot.I'mnottelling.</analysis></CFJ>uin.
>> 
>> then added whitespace and linebreaks.
>> 
>> However sushifying it via Korean produces the text:
>> Inside a Korean 
>> 
>> sushifying it via French and German produces the text:
>> 
>>
>ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalCFJ.BaronvonSkippyI
>> ha
>>
>vethesushi.IfIranthisthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterwar
>> ds
>> , it' slegal. IfIdidn' T, it' snot.I' mnottelling.uin.
>> 
>> 
>> Neither of these two can be turned into the message
>> sent by adding only whitespace and linebreaks,
>> therefore he failed to operate sushification correctly
>> and so the CFJ #655 never existed.
>> 
>> Judgement
>> dunno
>> 
>> why?
>> 
>> because I said so!
>> I accept that the object labeled CFJ 655 is/was not a
>> CFJ, since it wasn't a legal post (on buisness forum
>> by player with sushi... unsusified).
>> 
>> Also there is no rule 655.
>> 
>> However I do not know if there has ever been an object
>> so numbered in the past.
>> 
>> If I'm stupid, and the system goes, give it the next
>> number up and we can only use each number once then
>> this CFI is TRUE.
>
>'dunno' hardly counts as a judgment. But you're right. There was an object
>655, because if uin's CFJ was illegal, then I believe the next thing that
>gets recognized, be it proposal, rule, or CFJ, must be 655 instead.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

"Dunno" sounds like "undecided" to me...:)

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Hewwo.....
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:23:52 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I, heretofore known as Aslan, wish to become a member of this game (if
that's the right word). I vow that I shall be quiet and respectful until I 
have a better feel for the intricacies of the rules, at which point I shall 
wreak vengeance on everyone with a vowel in eir name. Or not. Only time will 
tell. Do we have time?

Aslan

-Just don't forget to vote. If you don't know anything well enough, abstain 
on everything, but vote... Forced Leave isn't a lot of fun.-

                                              -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:25:36 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: cfj 666
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/9/02 at 8:29 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Naath Thabana,
>> 
>>> Statement: The game has never had an object numbered
>>> 655.
>>> 
>>> Analysis:
>>> 
>>> The Reality Police had the sushi.
>>> 
>>> The Reality Police's message implies that he sushified
>>> the text:
>>> 
>>> 
>> <CFJ><statement<ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalC
>> FJ> .
>>> 
>> 
</statement><defendant>BaronvonSkippy</defendant><analysis>Ihavethesushi.IfI
r>> a
>>> nth
>>> 
>> 
isthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterwards,it'slegal.IfId
i>> d
>>> n'
>>> t,it'snot.I'mnottelling.</analysis></CFJ>uin.
>>> 
>>> then added whitespace and linebreaks.
>>> 
>>> However sushifying it via Korean produces the text:
>>> Inside a Korean
>>> 
>>> sushifying it via French and German produces the text:
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalCFJ.BaronvonSkipp
y>> I
>>> ha
>>> 
>> 
vethesushi.IfIranthisthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterw
a>> r
>>> ds
>>> , it' slegal. IfIdidn' T, it' snot.I' mnottelling.uin.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Neither of these two can be turned into the message
>>> sent by adding only whitespace and linebreaks,
>>> therefore he failed to operate sushification correctly
>>> and so the CFJ #655 never existed.
>>> 
>>> Judgement
>>> dunno
>>> 
>>> why?
>>> 
>>> because I said so!
>>> I accept that the object labeled CFJ 655 is/was not a
>>> CFJ, since it wasn't a legal post (on buisness forum
>>> by player with sushi... unsusified).
>>> 
>>> Also there is no rule 655.
>>> 
>>> However I do not know if there has ever been an object
>>> so numbered in the past.
>>> 
>>> If I'm stupid, and the system goes, give it the next
>>> number up and we can only use each number once then
>>> this CFI is TRUE.
>> 
>> 'dunno' hardly counts as a judgment. But you're right. There was an object
>> 655, because if uin's CFJ was illegal, then I believe the next thing that
>> gets recognized, be it proposal, rule, or CFJ, must be 655 instead.
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> "Dunno" sounds like "undecided" to me...:)
> 
> Glotmorf
> 

You're probably right... Should we CFJ that it was judged undecided? ;)

-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:31:36 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: cfj 666
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/9/02 at 9:25 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> "Dunno" sounds like "undecided" to me...:)
>> 
>> Glotmorf
>> 
>
>You're probably right... Should we CFJ that it was judged undecided? ;)
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Let's let Mr. A rule it first.  Otherwise someone might rule our CFJ undecided on the other CFJ being undecided...:)

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:43:36 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal-Messing with the System
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/9/02 at 9:23 PM Wonko wrote:

>I issue the following Charter Prop:
>
>{{
>__Let's get some points!__
>
>[[This is a Charter Prop. It could be far more nefarious, but I don't want
>to cause trouble - I just want to point out what's wrong with Charter
>Props.
>Basically, everyone who votes for this gets 20 points if it passes, and
>only
>1/3 of the players need to vote yes for it to pass. Just take the points
>and
>run.]]
>
>Create:
>
>{{
>__Points for All!__
>
>There exists a Society called the Holy Order of Points.
>
>Every player who voted for the proposal which created this rule is
>initially
>a member of the Holy Order of Points.
>
>New players may join by announcing eir intention to do so on a Public
>Forum;
>Any member of the Holy Order of Points may be kicked out by any other
>member
>of the Holy Order of Points. [[This is irrelevant anyway]]
>
>The Holy Order of Points may not submit Club Props.
>
>If at any time 1/3 or more of all players are members of the Holy Order of
>Points, all members of the Holy Order of Points gain 20 points and are
>immediately ousted from the club. [[and then, because it has no members,
>the
>Club is disbanded as per r578]]
>
>Wonko is the First Member of the Holy Order of Points.
>}}
>}}
>-- 
>Wonko

Gee...I'm tempted to CFJ it and say it was in violation of r155. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 02:35:36 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal-Messing with
  the System
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/9/02 at 9:43 PM Glotmorf wrote:

>On 5/9/02 at 9:23 PM Wonko wrote:
>
>>I issue the following Charter Prop:
>>
>>{{
>>__Let's get some points!__
>>
>>[[This is a Charter Prop. It could be far more nefarious, but I don't want
>>to cause trouble - I just want to point out what's wrong with Charter
>>Props.
>>Basically, everyone who votes for this gets 20 points if it passes, and
>>only
>>1/3 of the players need to vote yes for it to pass. Just take the points
>>and
>>run.]]
>>
>>Create:
>>
>>{{
>>__Points for All!__
>>
>>There exists a Society called the Holy Order of Points.
>>
>>Every player who voted for the proposal which created this rule is
>>initially
>>a member of the Holy Order of Points.
>>
>>New players may join by announcing eir intention to do so on a Public
>>Forum;
>>Any member of the Holy Order of Points may be kicked out by any other
>>member
>>of the Holy Order of Points. [[This is irrelevant anyway]]
>>
>>The Holy Order of Points may not submit Club Props.
>>
>>If at any time 1/3 or more of all players are members of the Holy Order of
>>Points, all members of the Holy Order of Points gain 20 points and are
>>immediately ousted from the club. [[and then, because it has no members,
>>the
>>Club is disbanded as per r578]]
>>
>>Wonko is the First Member of the Holy Order of Points.
>>}}
>>}}
>>-- 
>>Wonko
>
>Gee...I'm tempted to CFJ it and say it was in violation of r155. :)
>
>						Glotmorf

I take that back.  This is actually a violation of r631, courtesy of the changes I made last nweek, replacing "includes" with "consists of".  The charter prop rule says a charter prop "consists of" the items listed there.  Since nothing in that list mentioned awarding points to members for any reason, your proposal contains stuff that makes it not qualify as a charter prop.  Sorry, guy.

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 02:48:15 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Repealed Rules
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Mr. A...Could you perhaps change the sort order you use when generating the rule list so that repealed rules are listed at the end?

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:00:10 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Revise proposal 674
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Um..."harf"?
>
No thanks, I'm trying to quit.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Paul Smits" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Hewwo.....
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:32:33 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
>
>Quoth Aslan,
>>
> >Only time will
> >tell. Do we have time?
>
>That's a very interesting question... How do you define time?
>
>Wonko
>
Time, to misquote John Lennon (who was actually speaking about "life"), is 
what happens while we're making plans. Or in Wonko's case, silly proposals 
(oooh, did I say that out loud?)

Aslan

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Aslan the Great" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Hewwo.....
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:39:27 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>

>-Just don't forget to vote. If you don't know anything well enough, abstain
>on everything, but vote... Forced Leave isn't a lot of fun.-
>
>                                              -BvS-

Does it hurt? Does ointment help?

Aslan

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:49:43 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Hewwo.....
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/10/02 at 11:39 AM Aslan the Great wrote:

>>From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
>
>>-Just don't forget to vote. If you don't know anything well enough,
>abstain
>>on everything, but vote... Forced Leave isn't a lot of fun.-
>>
>>                                              -BvS-
>
>Does it hurt? Does ointment help?
>
>Aslan

Not as much as mineral oil.

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:40:03 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I join the game
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Bryan Donlan,

> 
> I join the game
> 
> Is there anything else I have to do?

I think you have to tell us who you are... or should we assume your name is
a blank string?

-- 
Wonko

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I join the game
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:48:29 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 10 May 2002 05:40 pm, you wrote:
> Quoth Bryan Donlan,
>
> > I join the game
> >
> > Is there anything else I have to do?
>
> I think you have to tell us who you are... or should we assume your name is
> a blank string?

Oh, right.

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I join the game
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:49:22 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--------------Boundary-00=_AM0XJK0LOCF6YVUQWWIO
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Friday 10 May 2002 05:02 pm, you wrote:
> I join the game
>
> Is there anything else I have to do?

I set my name to bd.
I set my PGP public key to the ascii-armored public key that is attached.

--------------Boundary-00=_AM0XJK0LOCF6YVUQWWIO
Content-Type: application/pgp-keys;
  name="my pgp key"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=public_key.asc

--------------Boundary-00=_AM0XJK0LOCF6YVUQWWIO--

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I join the game
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:50:46 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--------------Boundary-00=_MO0X7AC5G1S209B0O4F4
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Friday 10 May 2002 05:50 pm, you wrote:
> On Friday 10 May 2002 05:49 pm, you wrote:
> > I join the game
> >
> > Is there anything else I have to do?
>
> I set my name to bd.
> I set my PGP public key to the ascii-armored public key that is attached.
Err, this one.

--------------Boundary-00=_MO0X7AC5G1S209B0O4F4
Content-Type: application/pgp-keys;
  name="my pgp key"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=public_key.asc

--------------Boundary-00=_MO0X7AC5G1S209B0O4F4--

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Drink!
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 21:37:07 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I drink a glass of champagne.
I grow tired of pasting.

uin.

-Where are you getting the Champagne from?-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Hewwo.....
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 21:43:35 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>-Just don't forget to vote. If you don't know anything well enough, abstain
>on everything, but vote... Forced Leave isn't a lot of fun.-
>
>                                              -BvS-

Does it hurt? Does ointment help?

Aslan

-Only with the rash.-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I join the game
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:07:46 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I join the game

Is there anything else I have to do?

-*to other players* Look at all that "ttqHj9RnJcRAj1sAJ9i1f4ulU04JwZ" in his 
messages. I think he's a machine. Or he keeps falling asleep on his 
keyboard.-

                                              -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I join the game
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:05:44 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 10 May 2002 10:07 pm, you wrote:
> I join the game
>
> Is there anything else I have to do?
>
> -*to other players* Look at all that "ttqHj9RnJcRAj1sAJ9i1f4ulU04JwZ" in
> his messages. I think he's a machine. Or he keeps falling asleep on his
> keyboard.-

It's a pgp signature, fool.

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I join the game
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:25:12 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 10 May 2002 10:07 pm, you wrote:
 > I join the game
 >
 > Is there anything else I have to do?
 >
 > -*to other players* Look at all that "ttqHj9RnJcRAj1sAJ9i1f4ulU04JwZ" in
 > his messages. I think he's a machine. Or he keeps falling asleep on his
 > keyboard.-

It's a pgp signature, fool.

-*sigh* I /can/ read where it says "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" down below, you 
know. I may be a fool, but I'm not that much of one, fool.-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I join the game
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:24:27 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 10 May 2002 10:25 pm, you wrote:
> On Friday 10 May 2002 10:07 pm, you wrote:
>  > I join the game
>  >
>  > Is there anything else I have to do?
>  >
>  > -*to other players* Look at all that "ttqHj9RnJcRAj1sAJ9i1f4ulU04JwZ" in
>  > his messages. I think he's a machine. Or he keeps falling asleep on his
>  > keyboard.-
>
> It's a pgp signature, fool.
>
> -*sigh* I /can/ read where it says "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" down below, you
> know. I may be a fool, but I'm not that much of one, fool.-

Oh, and remove the sig when replying or it gives me a big Warning: The 
signature is bad. in red...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE83IDb0ttqHj9RnJcRAjJIAJ4gwGVWgjDMQ/pB+WNqMq9KW03gJwCfU5XB
Izh3mgGWnt79vJULFeO+v/YÊMH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Thuthi
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:24:42 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 10 May 2002 10:27 pm, you wrote:
> I give the thuthi to the ticket which is wild.

What?

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:30:06 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Thuthi
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/10/02 at 10:27 PM Glotmorf wrote:

>I give the thuthi to the ticket which is wild.  
>
>						Glotmorf

I thuthi'd the lithped verthion rather than lithping the thuthi'd verthion.

And yeth, WC, you wild ticket you, thith meanth YOU. :)

						Glotmorf

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Thuthi
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:29:40 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 10 May 2002 10:30 pm, you wrote:
> On 5/10/02 at 10:27 PM Glotmorf wrote:
> >I give the thuthi to the ticket which is wild.
> >
> >						Glotmorf
>
> I thuthi'd the lithped verthion rather than lithping the thuthi'd verthion.
>
> And yeth, WC, you wild ticket you, thith meanth YOU. :)
>
> 						Glotmorf

Ah.
BTW, when a new player starts(reference me), where does he start?

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:37:20 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Thuthi
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/10/02 at 10:24 PM Bryan Donlan wrote:

>On Friday 10 May 2002 10:27 pm, you wrote:
>> I give the thuthi to the ticket which is wild.
>
>What?

That was part of my Unholy Trifecta, to have the sushi and the scarf at the same time.  So I lisped "I give the sushi to Wild Card", then sushi'd it through Babelfish.  Oddly enough, scarf and sushi combined isn't that bad...lisped words aren't recognized by the translator and go right through. :)

BTW...Is there any way you can send messages to the game without the PGP stuff?  My email client, at least, doesn't process it, so it's just that much more stuff I delete when I respond.

And now for all those proposals I've been saving up...

						Glotmorf

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Thuthi
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:35:26 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 10 May 2002 10:37 pm, you wrote:
> On 5/10/02 at 10:24 PM Bryan Donlan wrote:
> >On Friday 10 May 2002 10:27 pm, you wrote:
> >> I give the thuthi to the ticket which is wild.
> >
> >What?
>
> That was part of my Unholy Trifecta, to have the sushi and the scarf at the
> same time.  So I lisped "I give the sushi to Wild Card", then sushi'd it
> through Babelfish.  Oddly enough, scarf and sushi combined isn't that
> bad...lisped words aren't recognized by the translator and go right
> through. :)

Do you still have the scarf? A forum is defined as a place where Players 
communicate; thus this is a forum; thus you should've lisped the message I'm 
replying to :)

> BTW...Is there any way you can send messages to the game without the PGP
> stuff?  My email client, at least, doesn't process it, so it's just that
> much more stuff I delete when I respond.

OK, I'll turn off the defalt thingy.

> And now for all those proposals I've been saving up...

Look for a loophole in the token of proposals rule ;) You'll find it if you 
look hard enough.

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:41:17 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Thuthi
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/10/02 at 10:29 PM Bryan Donlan wrote:

>On Friday 10 May 2002 10:30 pm, you wrote:
>> On 5/10/02 at 10:27 PM Glotmorf wrote:
>> >I give the thuthi to the ticket which is wild.
>> >
>> >						Glotmorf
>>
>> I thuthi'd the lithped verthion rather than lithping the thuthi'd
>verthion.
>>
>> And yeth, WC, you wild ticket you, thith meanth YOU. :)
>>
>> 						Glotmorf
>
>Ah.
>BTW, when a new player starts(reference me), where does he start?

Dimensionwise, you start at the Origin, with all your dimensions at zero (rule 154).  Gridwise you start in Limbo (rule 301).

						Glotmorf

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: On being a classy bastard
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:38:46 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 10 May 2002 10:43 pm, you wrote:
> I move to (11,10) and twiddle my thumbs.
>
> If that's not legal because it's technically 1.414 spaces instead of 1, I
> move to (11,11).

But do you twiddle your thumbs?

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: On being a classy bastard
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:50:08 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>I move to (11,10) and twiddle my thumbs.
 >
 > If that's not legal because it's technically 1.414 spaces instead of 1, I
 > move to (11,11).

But do you twiddle your thumbs?
-No, if I get stuck there, I put a finger in my ear and sing "I'm a Little 
Teapot" for kicks.-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:58:18 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: On being a classy bastard
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 10:43:29PM -0400, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> I move to (11,10) and twiddle my thumbs.
> 
> If that's not legal because it's technically 1.414 spaces instead of 1, I 
> move to (11,11).

Hmm. I think this may be something we've been overlooking all along...

It always seemed to me that the Grid should be on the chessboard (or
maybe Manhattan) metric. It is, after all, a Grid.

-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: nomic.net wiki entry
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 19:04:34 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 The Wiki entry is rather out of date - anyone want to volunteer to
update it?

 WC.

Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 23:34:28 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic.net wiki entry
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan David Amery,

> 
> The Wiki entry is rather out of date - anyone want to volunteer to
> update it?
> 
> WC.

There's a Wiki entry?

-- 
Wonko

Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 23:34:51 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: On being a classy bastard
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 10:43:29PM -0400, Alex Truelsen wrote:
>> I move to (11,10) and twiddle my thumbs.
>> 
>> If that's not legal because it's technically 1.414 spaces instead of 1, I
>> move to (11,11).
> 
> Hmm. I think this may be something we've been overlooking all along...
> 
> It always seemed to me that the Grid should be on the chessboard (or
> maybe Manhattan) metric. It is, after all, a Grid.

r301:
"Players may only move from eir current location to any of the units
surround eir current location."

No 'one' involved. Just 'surround'. Which, all things considered, is
probably worse. Because it makes no sense. Rectification, anyone?
-- 
Wonko

Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 23:36:19 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop: Less is More -- Lit Forms
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> {{ _Less is More: Lit Forms_
> 
> Change the text of Rule 437 with the text marked at start and end with @@@@@
> [[ which holds quotes from rules 437, 397, 357, 398, 399 and 438 ]]:
> 
> @@@@@

> Define "Zen Master of Nomic" as a Title.

> @@@@@

Don't you want something like "Zen Master of Nomic" is a title?
Right now, it's a proposal-type action trying to sneak into a rule...

-- 
Wonko

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic.net wiki entry
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 23:28:31 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Saturday 11 May 2002 11:34 pm, you wrote:
> Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
>
> > The Wiki entry is rather out of date - anyone want to volunteer to
> > update it?
> >
> > WC.
>
> There's a Wiki entry?

NomicGame, methinks...

It's where I first heard of nomic...

Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 23:51:54 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic.net wiki entry
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Bryan Donlan,

> On Saturday 11 May 2002 11:34 pm, you wrote:
>> Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
>> 
>>> The Wiki entry is rather out of date - anyone want to volunteer to
>>> update it?
>>> 
>>> WC.
>> 
>> There's a Wiki entry?
> 
> NomicGame, methinks...
> 
> It's where I first heard of nomic...

That's really confusing... why is it that I keep getting your replies to
messages before I get the messages?

-- 
Wonko

Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 23:53:29 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic.net wiki entry
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan David Amery,

> 
> The Wiki entry is rather out of date - anyone want to volunteer to
> update it?
> 
> WC.

Ah, I see it.

"B Nomic is descended from A Nomic, retaining many of its players. There's
not much else to say yet... "

Hmmm.... Well, what else is there to say?
-- 
Wonko

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 09:07:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic.net wiki entry
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 11 May 2002, Wonko wrote:

> "B Nomic is descended from A Nomic, retaining many of its players. There's
> not much else to say yet... "

Well, when I wrote that (last December, I'm guessing), there wasn't much
else to say at the time. :)

...dave

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 05:34:02 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop: Less is More --
  Lit Forms
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/11/02 at 11:36 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> {{ _Less is More: Lit Forms_
>> 
>> Change the text of Rule 437 with the text marked at start and end with
>@@@@@
>> [[ which holds quotes from rules 437, 397, 357, 398, 399 and 438 ]]:
>> 
>> @@@@@
>
>> Define "Zen Master of Nomic" as a Title.
>
>> @@@@@
>
>Don't you want something like "Zen Master of Nomic" is a title?
>Right now, it's a proposal-type action trying to sneak into a rule...
>
>
>-- 
>Wonko
Snuck into, actually.  That was an exact quote from the existing rule.  I guess I can shift the words around and still have it be a collective quote...:)

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 09:57:54 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Sunday morning)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> "Let's get some points!" is 676/1. (Since it creates something other than
> a Charter - i.e. the rule "The Other Exploitation," I still don't think it
> counts as a Charter Prop.

The rule requires the Charter Prop to contain a Charter; it doesn't say it
can't contain anything else. The *Charter* must consist of what the rule
says; the Charter Prop has no such restrictions.

-- 
Wonko

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic.net wiki entry
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 10:57:54 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Saturday 11 May 2002 11:53 pm, you wrote:
> Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
>
> > The Wiki entry is rather out of date - anyone want to volunteer to
> > update it?
> >
> > WC.
>
> Ah, I see it.
>
> "B Nomic is descended from A Nomic, retaining many of its players. There's
> not much else to say yet... "
>
> Hmmm.... Well, what else is there to say?

Oh, thought you, meant the c2.com one...

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 13:53:34 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
  (Sunday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/12/02 at 9:57 AM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth David E. Smith,
>
>
>> "Let's get some points!" is 676/1. (Since it creates something other than
>> a Charter - i.e. the rule "The Other Exploitation," I still don't think
>it
>> counts as a Charter Prop.
>
>The rule requires the Charter Prop to contain a Charter; it doesn't say it
>can't contain anything else. The *Charter* must consist of what the rule
>says; the Charter Prop has no such restrictions.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Well, now, you see, that's why I made that other change last nweek, that changed "rule" to "charter".  Now there's nothing in r631 that says a Charter Prop makes rules, except for those that club members have to obey.

We had this argument last nweek.  R631 doesn't say a Charter Prop is a proposal; it only says a Charter Prop is "like a normal prop. in that it's added to the nweek ballot and voted on."  It doesn't say that a Charter Prop is like a normal prop in that it has rule-changing authority.  And therefore, according to the Default Case, it doesn't have rule-changing authority.  You can put a rule change into a Charter Prop, but the rule change can't be implemented.

I did call them hole plugs, guy...:)

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 14:13:39 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
  (Sunday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/12/02 at 1:53 PM Glotmorf wrote:

>On 5/12/02 at 9:57 AM Wonko wrote:
>
>>Quoth David E. Smith,
>>
>>
>>> "Let's get some points!" is 676/1. (Since it creates something other
>than
>>> a Charter - i.e. the rule "The Other Exploitation," I still don't think
>>it
>>> counts as a Charter Prop.
>>
>>The rule requires the Charter Prop to contain a Charter; it doesn't say it
>>can't contain anything else. The *Charter* must consist of what the rule
>>says; the Charter Prop has no such restrictions.
>>
>>-- 
>>Wonko
>
>Well, now, you see, that's why I made that other change last nweek, that
>changed "rule" to "charter".  Now there's nothing in r631 that says a
>Charter Prop makes rules, except for those that club members have to obey.
>
>We had this argument last nweek.  R631 doesn't say a Charter Prop is a
>proposal; it only says a Charter Prop is "like a normal prop. in that it's
>added to the nweek ballot and voted on."  It doesn't say that a Charter
>Prop is like a normal prop in that it has rule-changing authority.  And
>therefore, according to the Default Case, it doesn't have rule-changing
>authority.  You can put a rule change into a Charter Prop, but the rule
>change can't be implemented.
>
>I did call them hole plugs, guy...:)
>
>						Glotmorf

Also, the current version of p676 only claims it's a Charter Prop in a comment.  And comments still don't have the Force of Rule.  So at the moment p676 still isn't a Charter Prop.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 14:28:32 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal - Bonus Boxes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/12/02 at 12:35 AM Wonko wrote:

>There exist Bonus Boxes called Black Holes. When a player finds a Black
>Hole, any Gnomes in eir possession are destroyed, and any Gremlins in eir
>possession are thrown into Limbo.

Won't this create all sorts of unpredictable weather effects?

						Glotmorf

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal - Bonus Boxes
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 14:24:24 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/12/02 at 12:35 AM Wonko wrote:
>There exist Bonus Boxes called Black Holes. When a player finds a Black
>Hole, any Gnomes in eir possession are destroyed, and any Gremlins in eir
>possession are thrown into Limbo.

Maybe it should pull players in?

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 14:31:00 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal: Remember me, remember me.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/10/02 at 7:25 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

><proosal>
><title>Remember me, remember me.</title>
><body>
>Create a new rule with the following @@@-delimited text, a chutzpah of 10,
>and the title "Comedy through repetition.".
>@@@
>Any players who voted against the proposal which created this rule shall
>have a score and charm of 0; these values may not be changed.
>
>The following steps are performed once only in the order in which they
>appear:
>Rule 212 is repealed.
>All players who voted for the proposal which created this rule are given
>235 points, and the title "Hero of the Revolution".
>All players who voted against the proposal which created this rule are
>given the attribute "Smelly", and have their charm set to 0.
>"Failing to appreciate comedy through repetition" is added to the LOGAS.
>All text in this rule after the first sentence is removed.
>@@@
></body>
></proosal>
>
>uin.

Dude.  This so violates r155. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 14:33:23 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal: requires such dedication.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/10/02 at 7:10 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

><proosal>
><title>Requires such dedication.</title>
><body>
>[[Sushi simplification; gets rid of the possibility of the sushi-holder
>rendering the gamestate undecidable. Also provides some way to punish
>people who bypass the sushi.]]
>Amend rule 213 by:
>replacing "may not" in the second sentence with "is encouraged not to";
>replacing "may write" with "is encouraged to write";
>replacing the second last paragraph with "Should the Player who has the
>Cursed Sushi of Babel (known also as the Cursed Player) post any message
>to a public Forum without first taking the steps prescribed above, they
>are said to have Denied the Undeniable Sushi.";
>removing the last paragraph [[redunant now]].
>
>Add "Denying the Undeniable Sushi, or attempting to do so by nefarious
>means [[such as concatenating all your message into one long word before
>translating it]]." to the LOGAS.
></body>
></proosal>
>
>uin.

Okay...I admit I've thought about repealing the sushi because there's potentially so many workarounds, but still some amount of effort had to be made.  But if you're gonna make the sushi optional, as long as one is willing to pay the points on it when caught, why not just repeal it altogether?

						Glotmorf

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal - Bonus Boxes 
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 23:39:20 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> {{
> __Bonus Boxes__

 Can I suggest that this proposal ought to amend the result of 674 if
it exists?

 WC.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Attn Admin - 668
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 23:41:02 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 I believe that proposal 668 didn't exist, because it includes four
syllable words.

 WC

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:37:09 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: In cathe there'th any quethtion...
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> [[ Conthider thith a replathement to the earlier "Would You Like Frieth with
> That?" ]]

Can you do that? I would think that changing the author of a proposal would
only be possible via rescinding the first one and making the new one from
the presidential position. I don't think we have any protocol for rescinding
proposals...

-- 
Wonko

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:38:24 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: In cathe there'th any quethtion...
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> If this proposal passes, give Bean (originator of the idea) and Wonko (refiner
> of the idea) each 1/3 of the points the proposal earns.

Is that rounded up or down? And how does that tie in to the splitting of
points between the members of M-Tek?

-- 
Wonko

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: nomic.net wiki entry
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:42:14 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 >
 > The Wiki entry is rather out of date - anyone want to volunteer to
 > update it?
 >
 > WC.

Ah, I see it.

"B Nomic is descended from A Nomic, retaining many of its players. There's
not much else to say yet... "

Hmmm.... Well, what else is there to say?
--
Wonko

-All A Nomic players, please raise your hands! I think this game has a bit 
of a life of its own... There must be something that can be said.-

                                          -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Sunday morning)
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:50:09 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Glotmorf Runs to the Football, grabs it, and Punts. When it lands, at the 
end of the nweek, its location will be (2,8).

-Hey, are there any Trekkies in here who know of the "Picard Maneuver?" I 
ask, Mr. A, because it looks as though Glotmorf has pulled one. (In otehr 
words, e's on (11,10) and (14,10) at the same time...) Or he's a Quantum 
Player, whose position cannot be determined until we look at him. *looks for 
Glotmorf*-

                                            -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:01:38 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Split Props -> A La Carte Props
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/12/02 at 11:33 PM ID Scott wrote:
> 
>> Well, your invitation sounds like a fun perverson of the rules, so why
>> not? do we have any rules for the adding of players to groups? (or is it
>> clubs?)
>> 
>> cheers,
>> Iain
> 
> I'd made the invitation privately, and reiterate it now publicly: Iain'th
> invited to join M-Tek.  I gather from Ian'th methage that he acthepth it.
> 
> Far ath I know, thath all it taketh.  Mr. A, Iain'th in M-Tek now.
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 
What exactly does Iain get from being a member of M-Tek? Apart from you
stealing eir bandwidth, that is...
-- 
Wonko

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:48:25 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: In cathe there'th any
  quethtion...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/12/02 at 9:37 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> [[ Conthider thith a replathement to the earlier "Would You Like Frieth
>with
>> That?" ]]
>
>Can you do that? I would think that changing the author of a proposal would
>only be possible via rescinding the first one and making the new one from
>the presidential position. I don't think we have any protocol for
>rescinding
>proposals...
>
>-- 
>Wonko

How am I changing the author?  I'm only reposting the same thing, still as a club prop, because the first time I forgot to lisp.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:50:31 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: In cathe there'th any
  quethtion...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/12/02 at 9:38 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>
>> If this proposal passes, give Bean (originator of the idea) and Wonko
>(refiner
>> of the idea) each 1/3 of the points the proposal earns.
>
>Is that rounded up or down? And how does that tie in to the splitting of
>points between the members of M-Tek?
>
>-- 
>Wonko

I was going to let the Administrator decide the rounding...probably to the nearest point.  The lowest Mr. A can roll on 3d6 is 3, which would be one for each of us.  And it would have to be before the M-Tek split, which meant if the prop only yielded one for us, we'd each get one because club props round split points up.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:57:07 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Split Props -> A La
  Carte Props
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/12/02 at 10:01 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/12/02 at 11:33 PM ID Scott wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, your invitation sounds like a fun perverson of the rules, so why
>>> not? do we have any rules for the adding of players to groups? (or is it
>>> clubs?)
>>> 
>>> cheers,
>>> Iain
>> 
>> I'd made the invitation privately, and reiterate it now publicly: Iain'th
>> invited to join M-Tek.  I gather from Ian'th methage that he acthepth it.
>> 
>> Far ath I know, thath all it taketh.  Mr. A, Iain'th in M-Tek now.
>> 
>> Glotmorf
>> 
>> 
>What exactly does Iain get from being a member of M-Tek? Apart from you
>stealing eir bandwidth, that is...
>-- 
>Wonko

Well, for one thing, as long as I pump out at least one club prop per nweek, e'll never go on Forced Leave, because e'll be auto-voting Yes each time.  And, as long as the club props I put out are on the average successful, e'll be getting points for my effort.

When you think about it, M-Tek is more like a bank than a club.  You put your bandwidth in, you draw on it if you want, and while it's sitting there idle it can still be making you money...

						Glotmorf

Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:59:16 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal - The End of the World
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/12/02 at 10:18 PM Wonko wrote:

>{{
>__The End is Nigh!__
>
>In r440, replace the numbered list with:
>
>"
>* All sirens, big rocks, Gnomes, big sticks, shields, and balls of wax are
>destroyed. 
>* All players are placed into Limbo.
>* All properties of grid squares [[such as Wet or Frozen]] are removed.
>* The Yeti is moved to a random square on the grid.
>* All Gremlins go into Hiding.
>* The Football is moved to a random square as if a touchdown had been
>scored.
>* In r394, section A.2, the numbers 1 and 20 are switched. [[swap
>endzones!]]
>* All Insta-Rules are destroyed.
>* Four Insta-Rules are enacted:
>{It is illegal to enter or remain in (10,10) without bouncing
>Elbonia-style}
>{It is illegal to enter or remain in (10,11) without bouncing
>Elbonia-style}
>{It is illegal to enter or remain in (11,11) without bouncing
>Elbonia-style}
>{It is illegal to enter or remain in (11,10) without bouncing
>Elbonia-style}
>* All Grid squares become of substance Fire.
>* All players receive 10 points.
>* All players' Entropy values are set to 0.
>
>At the end of the nweek in which the above occurs, all Grid squares lose
>eir
>substances, 5 random squares become Mud, and the Big Stick is placed on a
>random square.
>"
>
>Add 'Fire' to the list of Grid Substances.
>Append to r301 the following:
>"When a player enters a square of Fire, e loses 2d5 points."
>
>Give half the points earned by this proposal to the Voice.
>}}
>-- 
>Wonko

Dude.  That's harsh.  You been doing all-nighters with the Divine Comedy or something?

						Glotmorf

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:58:20 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> In prop 680, replathe the tectht delimited by @@@

This is ambiguous.  "@@@" appears six times in your message (though two
pairs out of those six overlap each other).

btw, Hi Everyone!, I'm inhaling the Ruleset in stages and will probably
become a player in a few days.

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 06:46:39 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal: Remember me,
    remember me.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Dude.  This so violates r155. :)
>
Actually, I rather think you'll find it doesn't. I'd CFJ it, but someone already did, and I'm right.

Rule 155 has never worked.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ 
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 13:18:44 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> <cfj>
> <statement>A player may drink a glass of champagne at any time, regardless of
>  whether any glasses of champagne exist.</statement>
> <analysis>
> Rule 503 states "A player may drink a glass of champagne by announcing that e
>  is doing so in a public forum, this causes it to be destroyed." Admittedly, 
> the "causes it to be destroyed" clause might *imply* that there has to be a g
> lass of champagne there, but it doesn't actually seem to be *required* anywhe
> re (and note that one could certainly drink someone else's champagne). Common
>  sense would indicate this statement is false, but the rules take precedence,
>  and they say one may drink.
> </analysis>
> </cfj>

 I would assert that you can't manipulate an object that doesn't exist
(whether the rules explicitly say this or not, I'm sure that they
don't say that you can).

 Also, you definitely can't drink a glass of champagne in another
player's possession, thanks to rule 636.

 WC

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:23:32 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/12/02 at 9:58 PM Ed Murphy wrote:

>"Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> In prop 680, replathe the tectht delimited by @@@
>
>This is ambiguous.  "@@@" appears six times in your message (though two
>pairs out of those six overlap each other).

Nine, if you count the opening statement.  You're not making the best possible first impression, guy...:)

						Glotmorf

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:51:36 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 5/12/02 at 9:58 PM Ed Murphy wrote:
> 
> >"Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> >> In prop 680, replathe the tectht delimited by @@@
> >
> >This is ambiguous.  "@@@" appears six times in your message (though two
> >pairs out of those six overlap each other).
> 
> Nine, if you count the opening statement.  You're not making the best
> possible first impression, guy...:)

Oh, I haven't even started yet.  Wait till I grok the Rules enough to
start making my own Proposals.  :)

More seriously:  Why is Rule 155 broken?  Gavin just mentioned a past
CFJ, but I wasn't here when it occurred.

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:36:04 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Ed Murphy,

> "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/12/02 at 9:58 PM Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 
>>> "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In prop 680, replathe the tectht delimited by @@@
>>> 
>>> This is ambiguous.  "@@@" appears six times in your message (though two
>>> pairs out of those six overlap each other).
>> 
>> Nine, if you count the opening statement.  You're not making the best
>> possible first impression, guy...:)
> 
> Oh, I haven't even started yet.  Wait till I grok the Rules enough to
> start making my own Proposals.  :)
> 
> More seriously:  Why is Rule 155 broken?  Gavin just mentioned a past
> CFJ, but I wasn't here when it occurred.
> 

It forbids proposals to discriminate between players depending on how they
voted on a certain issue. The CFJ RePol refers to is an ancient one that
decided that the effects of rules created by proposals do not count as
effects of the proposal itself. Thus, r155 is broken because one can get
around it simply by making a rule to do the counting for you.

-- 
Wonko

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re:
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:29:46 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Monday 13 May 2002 08:28 am, you wrote:
> [[To all:
>
> I have printed out, read, highlighted, cross-referenced, and indexed the
> rules.
>
> I have pondered, considered, speculated, and thrown chicken bones to
> determine my next step.
>
> I have reached the conclusion that stepping into the middle of a game like
> this is like... being a democratic candidate for president riding in a tank
> with a ridiculous helmet on. It simply can't do you any good.
>
> I therefore withdraw myself as a player (whatever the technical terms are
> for that statement, please consider them made), and bequeath my
> non-existant resources to The Voice, who appreciates the supernatural
> powers of sleep.
>
> To "bd" I say: a new player (that would be you) who calls a seasoned played
> (that would be BvS) a fool shows that even without pulling down his pants,
> everyone can see that he is an ass. May you fail to breed.

BvS? Who?

> If a new game begins involving any or all of the current players, please
> let me know. It's this jumping into the middle of a whirlpool thing that
> overwhelms the few neurons I have left. Bzzzzzt. Click. Goodbye.
>
> Aslan the Great (or so he claims)
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:46:10 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re:
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> 
> BvS? Who?
> 

That would be the Baron von Skippy, often reffered to as The Baron or simply
BvS.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:46:00 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/13/02 at 4:36 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Ed Murphy,
>
>> "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/12/02 at 9:58 PM Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In prop 680, replathe the tectht delimited by @@@
>>>> 
>>>> This is ambiguous.  "@@@" appears six times in your message (though two
>>>> pairs out of those six overlap each other).
>>> 
>>> Nine, if you count the opening statement.  You're not making the best
>>> possible first impression, guy...:)
>> 
>> Oh, I haven't even started yet.  Wait till I grok the Rules enough to
>> start making my own Proposals.  :)
>> 
>> More seriously:  Why is Rule 155 broken?  Gavin just mentioned a past
>> CFJ, but I wasn't here when it occurred.
>> 
>
>It forbids proposals to discriminate between players depending on how they
>voted on a certain issue. The CFJ RePol refers to is an ancient one that
>decided that the effects of rules created by proposals do not count as
>effects of the proposal itself. Thus, r155 is broken because one can get
>around it simply by making a rule to do the counting for you.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Except that the current version of r155 says that rules that count votes are an effect of the proposals that made them do that.  So r155 isn't currently broken.  Though it doesn't exactly forbid proposals that make rules that count votes; it just says that if one makes a rule that takes action based on vote count, it doesn't actually take that action.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:52:58 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/13/02 at 4:36 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Ed Murphy,
>> 
>>> "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/12/02 at 9:58 PM Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In prop 680, replathe the tectht delimited by @@@
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is ambiguous.  "@@@" appears six times in your message (though two
>>>>> pairs out of those six overlap each other).
>>>> 
>>>> Nine, if you count the opening statement.  You're not making the best
>>>> possible first impression, guy...:)
>>> 
>>> Oh, I haven't even started yet.  Wait till I grok the Rules enough to
>>> start making my own Proposals.  :)
>>> 
>>> More seriously:  Why is Rule 155 broken?  Gavin just mentioned a past
>>> CFJ, but I wasn't here when it occurred.
>>> 
>> 
>> It forbids proposals to discriminate between players depending on how they
>> voted on a certain issue. The CFJ RePol refers to is an ancient one that
>> decided that the effects of rules created by proposals do not count as
>> effects of the proposal itself. Thus, r155 is broken because one can get
>> around it simply by making a rule to do the counting for you.
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> Except that the current version of r155 says that rules that count votes are
> an effect of the proposals that made them do that.  So r155 isn't currently
> broken.  Though it doesn't exactly forbid proposals that make rules that count
> votes; it just says that if one makes a rule that takes action based on vote
> count, it doesn't actually take that action.
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 
Then Uin's proposal is not actually illegal; it's rule will simply have no
effect. Except it's got Chutzpah 10. So it will anyway. And r155 is broken.

It's broken anyway, 'cause you could simply add another layer - create a
rule that creates a rule that creates a rule ... that discriminates based on
voting.
-- 
Wonko

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: "B Nomic Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Two non-Proposals
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:35:54 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here are some simple test cases.  Am I doing anything wrong?

In particular, why do players often say things like "Proposal 6-6-1"
or "Proposal Six-Six-One"?  Is there a substantive requirement or
benefit to doing so, or is it done just because it's interesting?

-----

Not yet a Proposal:  __Do Your Own Homework!__

Amend Rule 466 (Radar) by replacing the text "reveal" with the text
"reveal to that player".

-----

Not yet a Proposal:  __Avoid Conflicts of Interest__

Replace the text of Rule 127 (Judges) with the following:
{{
When a CFI has been made, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select a
Judge from the players eligible to Judge that CFI.

The Clerk of the Courts is the Administrator, unless the Administrator is the
Defendant, in which case the Clerk of the Courts is the player with the highest
Score.  (If two or more players are tied for the highest Score, then the
Administrator randomly chooses one of them.)

The Plaintiff, Defendant, and Clerk of the Courts for a CFI are never eligible
to Judge that CFI.

Players on the LMJ are ineligible to Judge any CFI.  However, if this would
result in a CFI with no player eligible to Judge it, then the player who was
first added to the LMJ - excluding the Plaintiff, Defendant, and Clerk of the
Courts - becomes eligible to Judge that CFI, and is selected as its Judge.
}}

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: 
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 21:28:13 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[To all:

I have printed out, read, highlighted, cross-referenced, and indexed the 
rules.

I have pondered, considered, speculated, and thrown chicken bones to 
determine my next step.

I have reached the conclusion that stepping into the middle of a game like 
this is like... being a democratic candidate for president riding in a tank 
with a ridiculous helmet on. It simply can't do you any good.

I therefore withdraw myself as a player (whatever the technical terms are 
for that statement, please consider them made), and bequeath my non-existant 
resources to The Voice, who appreciates the supernatural powers of sleep.

To "bd" I say: a new player (that would be you) who calls a seasoned played 
(that would be BvS) a fool shows that even without pulling down his pants, 
everyone can see that he is an ass. May you fail to breed.

If a new game begins involving any or all of the current players, please let 
me know. It's this jumping into the middle of a whirlpool thing that 
overwhelms the few neurons I have left. Bzzzzzt. Click. Goodbye.

Aslan the Great (or so he claims)

-So it's too late in the nweek for a proposal. Consider this an informal 
one, then. For the most clever and well-thought-out forfeit this game has or 
may seen, I declare my Respect for Aslan the Great. May we see him again 
someday.-

                                            -*salutes*-
                                               -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 21:43:10 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

You're not making the best possible first impression, guy...:)

-Are we getting defensive, your Prezness? Observant, that one, and has 
initiative... Out of curiosity, what's with the spate of new players? New 
players, any particular reason you all appeared at once?-

                                              -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Outstanding CF{J,I}s
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 02:43:56 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 The following players have unjudged CFJ/CFIs (according to the website):

 Yuki:   620
 Rob:    621
 Wonko:  622
 rachel: 665

 The substance of these CF{J,I}s can be found at:

 http://www.nomic.net/~g6/static/cfj.html

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:09:47 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

More seriously:  Why is Rule 155 broken?  Gavin just mentioned a past
CFJ, but I wasn't here when it occurred.

-Psst, new guy. Er name is uin, or The Reality Police, not "Gavin." Player 
names, not real names.-

                                             -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re:
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:13:31 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

To "bd" I say: a new player (that would be you) who calls a seasoned played
 > (that would be BvS) a fool shows that even without pulling down his 
pants,
 > everyone can see that he is an ass. May you fail to breed.

BvS? Who?

-*cough* Over here... (not so helpful, was that?) Baron von Skippy...-

                                           -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: PropChange
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:15:21 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Then, I put all Gnomes in my possession in my Gnome Bag.

-I hope you're just being careful, not planning for the worst...-

                                         -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:19:25 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Shame on you, submitting swiss-cheese CFJs like this...

On 5/13/02 at 4:45 PM Wonko wrote:

><CFJ>
>There is no club called M-Tek.
>
>Defendant: Glotmorf
>
>Analysis:
>As Glotmorf has repeatedly insisted, Charter Props are not normal Props.
>Because the Charter Rule says so, Charter Props are put on the Ballot and
>voted on. However, the Charter Rule does not account for the following
>things which they are excluded from by not being proposals:
>They don't recieve Serial Numbers (r5)

R5 doesn't say only proposals get serial numbers, or even that only revisable objects get serial numbers; it only says that revisable objects explicitly do get serial numbers.  If a Charter Prop is a revisable object, it can have a serial number.  If it's not a revisable object, is there anything that says it can't have a serial number?

And even if it can't have a serial number, so what?  Gnomes don't have serial numbers either, and that doesn't stop them from being game entities and changing the game state under certain circumstances.

>They may attempt to temporarily circumvent the rules (r10)

The submitting of a Charter Prop is a Game Action.  Game Actions can't temporarily circumvent the rules.  And there's no provision in the Charter Prop rule for attempting to do so.

>They may not be revised (r19)

R19 says proposals can be revised; it doesn't say that other things can't be.  R18, after all, says that anything not regulated is permissible; if there's nothing that talks about revising Charter Props, that suggests it's permitted.

And even if they can't be, so what?  That just means the proposer had better get it right the first time, and the Charter Prop is more likely to get voted down if e doesn't.  There's nothing that says we can't have non-revisable objects.

>**They are not processed, nor do their actions take effect**, nor may they
>be vetoed, nor do they cause dimension changes to their proponents (r32)

Charter Props don't contain actions.  They contain provisions and limitations for actions.  Which is why your Let's Get Rich club just doesn't work.  As to not being veto-able and not changing proponents' dimensions, "That's not a bug, it's a feature."  The Charter Prop rule explicitly states dimensions aren't changed.

As for not being "processed" like a proposal, so what?  R631 says a Club exists when a player makes a Charter Prop and it's voted on; being voted on implies a process that ties it in with the following sentence, which determines whether or not the Charter Prop passes.  That the Charter Prop isn't "processed" by the Administrator as are proposals doesn't keep the Club from existing when the proper number of votes are cast for it.

>They need not be displayed for public review (r211)

R16 -- If they're not posted to the public forum, they don't happen.  That kinda displays them for public review.

>They may not be rectified by the admin to change 'day' to 'nday' (r257)

Then the proposer had better get it right the first time, no?  Or mean "day" if e says "day".

>They are not exempt from the Scarf's effects (r258)

Good thing I didn't have the Scarf when I proposed M-Tek, then.

>They may not modify the LOGAS (r260)

And why, precisely, should they?

>
>There are other things Charter Props are excluded from, but the important
>thing is that their actions do not take effect. Thus, there is no M-Tek.
></CFJ>
>-- 
>Wonko

All in all, everything you've listed as being apparent deficiencies in Charter Props are in fact differences between Charter Props and proposals.  Okay, so differences exist.  I fail to see why this means Charter Props can't exist; after all, we have a rule that defines them as a game entity.

						Glotmorf

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 19:13:23 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Alex Truelsen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, what's with the spate of new players? New 
> players, any particular reason you all appeared at once?-

I was poking around the NomicWiki.

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:25:39 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/13/02 at 4:52 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/13/02 at 4:36 PM Wonko wrote:
>> 
>>> Quoth Ed Murphy,
>>> 
>>>> "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/12/02 at 9:58 PM Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In prop 680, replathe the tectht delimited by @@@
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is ambiguous.  "@@@" appears six times in your message (though
>two
>>>>>> pairs out of those six overlap each other).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nine, if you count the opening statement.  You're not making the best
>>>>> possible first impression, guy...:)
>>>> 
>>>> Oh, I haven't even started yet.  Wait till I grok the Rules enough to
>>>> start making my own Proposals.  :)
>>>> 
>>>> More seriously:  Why is Rule 155 broken?  Gavin just mentioned a past
>>>> CFJ, but I wasn't here when it occurred.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It forbids proposals to discriminate between players depending on how
>they
>>> voted on a certain issue. The CFJ RePol refers to is an ancient one that
>>> decided that the effects of rules created by proposals do not count as
>>> effects of the proposal itself. Thus, r155 is broken because one can get
>>> around it simply by making a rule to do the counting for you.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Wonko
>> 
>> Except that the current version of r155 says that rules that count votes
>are
>> an effect of the proposals that made them do that.  So r155 isn't
>currently
>> broken.  Though it doesn't exactly forbid proposals that make rules that
>count
>> votes; it just says that if one makes a rule that takes action based on
>vote
>> count, it doesn't actually take that action.
>> 
>> Glotmorf
>> 
>> 
>Then Uin's proposal is not actually illegal; it's rule will simply have no
>effect. Except it's got Chutzpah 10. So it will anyway. And r155 is broken.
>
>It's broken anyway, 'cause you could simply add another layer - create a
>rule that creates a rule that creates a rule ... that discriminates based
>on
>voting.
>-- 
>Wonko

Adding layers doesn't make any difference.  The point is, even if you propose a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule that sets up a mechanism to make a rule three nweeks from now, it's still a change to the ruleset that the proposal is making that will result in votes being counted.  If it's a rule that counts votes, and it's made by another rule, then it's a rule that's making a rule that counts votes.  Causality goes backward all the way to the proposal, because the proposal contains the entire mechanism.

And one could argue that a proposal that makes a rule, ad nauseum, is an attempt to circumvent the rules, and thus is a violation of r10.  Which also has a Chutzpah of 10 and is a lower number.

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:30:58 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Two non-Proposals
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/13/02 at 5:35 PM Ed Murphy wrote:

>Here are some simple test cases.  Am I doing anything wrong?
>
>In particular, why do players often say things like "Proposal 6-6-1"
>or "Proposal Six-Six-One"?  Is there a substantive requirement or
>benefit to doing so, or is it done just because it's interesting?

Rule 440, the Entropy rule.  As a Player's entropy gets higher, e has to use words of fewer and fewer syllables (think of structure breaking down as everything collapses into chaos).  "6-6-1" uses one-syllable words -- "six six one" -- as opposed to "661" -- "six hundred sixty one".  But that's not an issue now, because numbers are exempt from the Entropy restriction.

>-----
>
>Not yet a Proposal:  __Do Your Own Homework!__
>
>Amend Rule 466 (Radar) by replacing the text "reveal" with the text
>"reveal to that player".
>
>-----
>
>Not yet a Proposal:  __Avoid Conflicts of Interest__
>
>Replace the text of Rule 127 (Judges) with the following:
>{{
>When a CFI has been made, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select a
>Judge from the players eligible to Judge that CFI.
>
>The Clerk of the Courts is the Administrator, unless the Administrator is
>the
>Defendant, in which case the Clerk of the Courts is the player with the
>highest
>Score.  (If two or more players are tied for the highest Score, then the
>Administrator randomly chooses one of them.)
>
>The Plaintiff, Defendant, and Clerk of the Courts for a CFI are never
>eligible
>to Judge that CFI.
>
>Players on the LMJ are ineligible to Judge any CFI.  However, if this would
>result in a CFI with no player eligible to Judge it, then the player who
>was
>first added to the LMJ - excluding the Plaintiff, Defendant, and Clerk of
>the
>Courts - becomes eligible to Judge that CFI, and is selected as its Judge.
>}}
>
>
>-- 
>Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
>http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

They look fine as to form and function.  No comment on their viability as actual proposals. :)

						Glotmorf

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:31:21 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

David wrote:

> The following measures are on the ballot for nweek 15:

Did I become a player in time to vote on these?

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 07:30:09 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> >Then Uin's proposal is not actually illegal; it's rule will simply have no
> >effect. Except it's got Chutzpah 10. So it will anyway. And r155 is broken.
> >
> >It's broken anyway, 'cause you could simply add another layer - create a
> >rule that creates a rule that creates a rule ... that discriminates based
> >on voting.
> >-- 
> >Wonko
>
> Adding layers doesn't make any difference.  The point is, even if you
> propose a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule
> that makes a rule that sets up a mechanism to make a rule three nweeks
> from now, it's still a change to the ruleset that the proposal is making that
> will result in votes being counted.  If it's a rule that counts votes, and it's
> made by another rule, then it's a rule that's making a rule that counts votes. 
> Causality goes backward all the way to the proposal, because the proposal
> contains the entire mechanism.
>
Well... no. That's sort of the point - actions taken by a rule made by a proosal are not actions of that proosal, by that CFJ. Exactly the same applies - actions taken by a rule created by a rule created by a proosal are not actions of the proosal. It's the same thing, just one step removed. Now, it might be possible to rewrite rule 155 such that that isn't the case, but then chutzpah 10 would just nuke it anyway.

> And one could argue that a proposal that makes a rule, ad nauseum, is an
> attempt to circumvent the rules, and thus is a violation of r10.  Which also
> has a Chutzpah of 10 and is a lower number.
>
One could argue that, but one would be silly and wrong. As explained above, the proosal wouldn't be doing anything except creating a rule. The fact that that rule then overrules another rule is irrelevant (and falls under the domain of precedence).

Rule 155 doesn't work, and given that a proosal can alter the rules, rule 155 can *never* work - any sufficiently convoluted proosal will be able to override it. (Excepting the discovery of the long-sought Immutable Rule, a beast for which we have as yet no evidence).

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 07:32:03 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Not the same as apathy.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<proosal>
<title>Not the same as apathy.</title>
<body>
Create a new rule, titled "Disinterested Players", with a chutzpah of 5[[?]], and the following @@@-delimited text:
@@@
A player may become Disinterested by stating that they are doing so. At this time they are removed from any groups or football teams they are in, and are placed in Limbo if they are not there already.

Disinterested players:
Have a score, charm, and entropy of 0.
Are not eligible to receive the sushi, the scarf, the token of proposals, or the immunity idol.
May not play football.
Are in Limbo.
May not give, and are not eligible to receive, a Kick in the Ass.
May not be in a group.
[[Have I missed anything? All I really want to leave are proosing and judging. Oh, and voting.]]

This rule takes precedence over any other which would otherwise alter the state of a Disinterested player to be in conflict with this rule.
@@@

The player who submitted this proposal becomes Disinterested.
</body>
</proosal>

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:50:30 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Voting
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/14/02 at 2:22 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>The inside 667 - is like that.
>
>The Should've which is this method original.
>
>
>The inside 669 is not -.
>
>Why the football which is not?

You forgot p668.  Nice job vote-commenting through the sushi, BTW.

						Glotmorf

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Voting 
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:58:31 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> You forgot p668. 

 I have:

# Proposal 668 in fact shouldn't exist, due to Entropy limits. We shall
# pretend it never existed...

 And:

% Proposal 668/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)

 But since I agree with the former quote (from the Recogniser) I
didn't vote on it.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Judment 
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:04:47 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Statement: This CFJ created a thread-split.
> 
> Judgment: False.
> 
> Analysis: Why would it?
> 
 It's a bistable state - both `True' and `False' are consistant.

 WC.

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 11:56:05 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 688
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> CFJ 688 reads:
> "Statement: A player may drink a glass of champagne at any time, regardless 
> of whether any glasses of champagne exist.
>
> "Analysis:
> Rule 503 states "A player may drink a glass of champagne by announcing that 
> e is doing so in a public forum, this causes it to be destroyed." 
> Admittedly, the "causes it to be destroyed" clause might *imply* that there 
> has to be a glass of champagne there, but it doesn't actually seem to be 
> *required* anywhere (and note that one could certainly drink someone else's 
> champagne). Common sense would indicate this statement is false, but the 
> rules take precedence, and they say one may drink."
>
> Ruling:
> After reading the rule in question, I have to, sadly, judge this CFJ to be 
> TRUE.
>
> Analysis:
> There is no place where a price tag is put on a glass of Champagne.  While I 
> hope that this hole is patched soon, I would also note to uin that, having 
> drunk in excess of two dozen glasses of bubbly (I counted), e now will be 
> inebriated for about 20 nweeks, or, with no switches to wtime, 6 months, 
> real-world. Go ahead, uin, throw a Beer Can. Copper's getting rusty.
>
>                                                        Bottoms up,
>                                                           BvS
>
I think my irony meter just overloaded.

Although - "in excess of two dozen"? I think not, unless you're counting some from some previous nWeek.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:07:48 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: About that there ballot...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yup. I managed to accidentally put p668 on the ballot, even though it
doesn't exist. The parties responsible have been sacked.

...dave

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:08:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 14 May 2002, Ed Murphy wrote:

> Did I become a player in time to vote on these?

I have not yet seen a message from you, posted to a public forum,
declaring your intent to join. So, no. :)

...dave

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:46:02 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Monday 13 May 2002 10:13 pm, you wrote:
> Alex Truelsen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, what's with the spate of new players? New
> > players, any particular reason you all appeared at once?-
>
> I was poking around the NomicWiki.

Me too.

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:46:41 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 14 May 2002 12:25 am, you wrote:
> Adding layers doesn't make any difference.  The point is, even if you
> propose a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule that
> makes a rule that sets up a mechanism to make a rule three nweeks from now,
> it's still a change to the ruleset that the proposal is making that will
> result in votes being counted.  If it's a rule that counts votes, and it's
> made by another rule, then it's a rule that's making a rule that counts
> votes.  Causality goes backward all the way to the proposal, because the
> proposal contains the entire mechanism.
>
> And one could argue that a proposal that makes a rule, ad nauseum, is an
> attempt to circumvent the rules, and thus is a violation of r10.  Which
> also has a Chutzpah of 10 and is a lower number.

You could amend the rules so it's legal :)

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:47:44 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 14 May 2002 08:30 am, you wrote:
> > >Then Uin's proposal is not actually illegal; it's rule will simply have
> > > no effect. Except it's got Chutzpah 10. So it will anyway. And r155 is
> > > broken.
> > >
> > >It's broken anyway, 'cause you could simply add another layer - create a
> > >rule that creates a rule that creates a rule ... that discriminates
> > > based on voting.
> > >--
> > >Wonko
> >
> > Adding layers doesn't make any difference.  The point is, even if you
> > propose a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule
> > that makes a rule that sets up a mechanism to make a rule three nweeks
> > from now, it's still a change to the ruleset that the proposal is making
> > that will result in votes being counted.  If it's a rule that counts
> > votes, and it's made by another rule, then it's a rule that's making a
> > rule that counts votes. Causality goes backward all the way to the
> > proposal, because the proposal contains the entire mechanism.
>
> Well... no. That's sort of the point - actions taken by a rule made by a
> proosal are not actions of that proosal, by that CFJ. Exactly the same
> applies - actions taken by a rule created by a rule created by a proosal
> are not actions of the proosal. It's the same thing, just one step removed.
> Now, it might be possible to rewrite rule 155 such that that isn't the
> case, but then chutzpah 10 would just nuke it anyway.

Sounds like a job for a CFJ.

> > And one could argue that a proposal that makes a rule, ad nauseum, is an
> > attempt to circumvent the rules, and thus is a violation of r10.  Which
> > also has a Chutzpah of 10 and is a lower number.
>
> One could argue that, but one would be silly and wrong. As explained above,
> the proosal wouldn't be doing anything except creating a rule. The fact
> that that rule then overrules another rule is irrelevant (and falls under
> the domain of precedence).
>
> Rule 155 doesn't work, and given that a proosal can alter the rules, rule
> 155 can *never* work - any sufficiently convoluted proosal will be able to
> override it. (Excepting the discovery of the long-sought Immutable Rule, a
> beast for which we have as yet no evidence).

Hmm...

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:59:54 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

uin wrote:

> Rule 155 doesn't work, and given that a proosal can alter the rules, rule
> 155 can *never* work - any sufficiently convoluted proosal will be able to
> override it. (Excepting the discovery of the long-sought Immutable Rule, a
> beast for which we have as yet no evidence).

Not yet a Proposal:  __Fix Rule 155__

Give Rule 155 (No kickbacks) a Chutzpah of 9, and replace its text with the
following:
{{
I. Legislative Kickbacks 

If a proposal would directly or indirectly discriminate between players
based on their voting actions on that proposal, or any other specific
proposal(s) identified in the proposal, then the adoption of that proposal
does not cause any part of the proposal to take effect.

II. Judicial Kickbacks 

If a CFI would directly or indirectly call for discrimination between
players based on their judicial actions on that CFI, or any other specific
CFI(s) identified in the CFI, then the Judge of that CFI can and must
Judge it "Refused".
}}

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:55:04 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 14 May 2002 01:59 pm, you wrote:
> uin wrote:
> > Rule 155 doesn't work, and given that a proosal can alter the rules, rule
> > 155 can *never* work - any sufficiently convoluted proosal will be able
> > to override it. (Excepting the discovery of the long-sought Immutable
> > Rule, a beast for which we have as yet no evidence).
>
> Not yet a Proposal:  __Fix Rule 155__
>
> Give Rule 155 (No kickbacks) a Chutzpah of 9, and replace its text with the
> following:
> {{
> I. Legislative Kickbacks
>
> If a proposal would directly or indirectly discriminate between players
> based on their voting actions on that proposal, or any other specific
> proposal(s) identified in the proposal, then the adoption of that proposal
> does not cause any part of the proposal to take effect.
>
> II. Judicial Kickbacks
>
> If a CFI would directly or indirectly call for discrimination between
> players based on their judicial actions on that CFI, or any other specific
> CFI(s) identified in the CFI, then the Judge of that CFI can and must
> Judge it "Refused".
> }}

I'd vote yes... once I'm done exploiting the old version :)

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:24:00 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Not the same as apathy.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 07:32:03AM -0500, Gavin Doig wrote:
> <proosal>
> <title>Not the same as apathy.</title>
> <body>
> Create a new rule, titled "Disinterested Players", with a chutzpah of 5[[?]], and the following @@@-delimited text:
> @@@
> A player may become Disinterested by stating that they are doing so. At this time they are removed from any groups or football teams they are in, and are placed in Limbo if they are not there already.
> 
> Disinterested players:
> Have a score, charm, and entropy of 0.
> Are not eligible to receive the sushi, the scarf, the token of proposals, or the immunity idol.
> May not play football.
> Are in Limbo.

Until there's something to keep track of a player's previous position on
the Grid and require that they go back there, I will not vote for any
"free ticket to Limbo" proposals.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:56:19 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

dave wrote:

> > Did I become a player in time to vote on these?

> I have not yet seen a message from you, posted to a public forum,
> declaring your intent to join. So, no. :)

Message-ID: <00ed01c1fadf$556f67e0$125da518@eddie>
From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: "B Nomic Business" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-business: I become a player
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:33:50 -0700

> I am capable of passing the Turing test.  (Insert favorite insult here.)
> I consent to be designated as a player, and to be governed by the rules.
> 
> I thereby become a player, per the auspiciously numbered Rule 13.
> 
> I select M as my gender, per Rule 295.

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:58:57 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 14 May 2002 04:01 pm, you wrote:
>  MU > Proposal 668/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)

Is that a valid answer?

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT 
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:07:27 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through

 Hmm, are you the Ed Murphy of Internomic SFJ #10?

 WC.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT 
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:08:45 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> On Tuesday 14 May 2002 04:01 pm, you wrote:
> >  MU > Proposal 668/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card) 
> Is that a valid answer?

 It's not a valid question :).

 WC.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:28:04 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Ed Murphy,

> David wrote:
> 
>> The following measures are on the ballot for nweek 15:
> 
> Did I become a player in time to vote on these?
> 
Indeed you did. Although r20 attempts to stop you,

"Players who became a Player less than one full nday prior to the time at
which Voting on that given nweek's Ballot begins may not vote until the
following nweek's Voting.",

it then immediately contradicts itself,

"Each Player is eligible to vote on each issue on any given Ballot for the
duration of the voting for which the Ballot was issued."

As per r33, 

"Whenever one section of a rule conflicts with another section of the same
rule, the section which appears later in the rule takes precedence over the
earlier section."

Thus, you may vote no matter how late you joined.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:28:24 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

>> They may not be revised (r19)
> 
> R19 says proposals can be revised; it doesn't say that other things can't be.
> R18, after all, says that anything not regulated is permissible; if there's
> nothing that talks about revising Charter Props, that suggests it's permitted.

'Players may not change the game state', remember?

> And even if they can't be, so what?  That just means the proposer had better
> get it right the first time, and the Charter Prop is more likely to get voted
> down if e doesn't.  There's nothing that says we can't have non-revisable
> objects.
>
>> **They are not processed, nor do their actions take effect**, nor may they
>> be vetoed, nor do they cause dimension changes to their proponents (r32)
> 
> Charter Props don't contain actions.  They contain provisions and limitations
> for actions.  Which is why your Let's Get Rich club just doesn't work.  As to
> not being veto-able and not changing proponents' dimensions, "That's not a
> bug, it's a feature."  The Charter Prop rule explicitly states dimensions
> aren't changed.
> 
> As for not being "processed" like a proposal, so what?  R631 says a Club
> exists when a player makes a Charter Prop and it's voted on; being voted on
> implies a process that ties it in with the following sentence, which
> determines whether or not the Charter Prop passes.  That the Charter Prop
> isn't "processed" by the Administrator as are proposals doesn't keep the Club
> from existing when the proper number of votes are cast for it.

It says no such thing. Nowhere does it say "If a Charter Prop passes, then
its Charter is added to the ruleset." No distinction is ever made between
CPs that pass and those that fail, nor is any method given for determing
when CPs do or do not create their Charters.

> 
> All in all, everything you've listed as being apparent deficiencies in Charter
> Props are in fact differences between Charter Props and proposals.  Okay, so
> differences exist.  I fail to see why this means Charter Props can't exist;
> after all, we have a rule that defines them as a game entity.

Charter Props can certainly exist. They simply do nothing.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:37:18 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Gavin Doig,

> Rule 155 doesn't work, and given that a proosal can alter the rules, rule 155
> can *never* work - any sufficiently convoluted proosal will be able to
> override it. (Excepting the discovery of the long-sought Immutable Rule, a
> beast for which we have as yet no evidence).

Hmm... How about,
{{
__The Immutable Rule__

If any player issues a proposal which directly or indirectly mentions this
rule, or a set of rules which includes this rule, or any text contained in
this rule, that player is immediately evicted from the game and all eir
proposals are destroyed. If any rule other than this one mentions this rule,
that rule is immediately repealed. If any proposal or rule other than this
one attempts to change this rule, that proposal or rule is entirely void. If
any proposal is made that, as one of its actions, gives a rule a Chutzpah
rating higher than that of this rule, this rule automatically amends itself
to change its Chutzpah to the highest mentioned Chutzpah plus 10. This rule
takes precedence over all rules.
}}

Or, quite simply,
{{
__Stagnation__ {* 500 *}

Players may not make proposals. This rule supercedes all other rules.
}}
-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:54:28 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Tuesday 14 May 2002 03:09 am, you wrote:
>> The following measures are on the ballot for nweek 15:
>> 
>> Proposal 661/1: One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor
>> (Baron von Skippy)
> YES
>> Proposal 667/0: Finding the right Shelf (Wonko)
> YES
>> Proposal 668/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)
> ABSTAIN
>> Proposal 669/0: Adminball (The Voice)
> NO
>> Proposal 670/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)
> NO (This is a duplicate of Proposal 668/0)
>> Proposal 671/0: Process (Wild Card)
> YES
>> Proposal 672/0: A Fix for Glotmorf (Wonko)
> YES
>> Proposal 673/0: Simplicity (The Voice)
> YES(I thought I suggested that... not wild card :)
>> Proposal 674/1: Ministry of the Survey for Ordinance (Wild Card)
> YES
>> Proposal 675/0: Insta-Minister (The Administrator)
> YES
>> Proposal 676/1: Let's get some points! (Wonko)
> YES
>> Proposal 677/0: Requires such dedication. (The Reality Police)
> YES
>> Proposal 678/0: Remember me, remember me. (The Reality Police)
> Err.... YES
>> Proposal 679/0: Nweek 15 hole plugs (Glotmorf)
> YES
>> Proposal 680/1: Less is More: Lit Forms (Glotmorf)
> YES
>> Proposal 681/0: Just to Show It Can Be Done -- a Short Dim Ship Tale
>> (Glotmorf)
> YES
>> Proposal 682/0: The People Have Spoken! (Glotmorf)
> YES
>> Proposal 683/0: Not Everybody is a Number (Glotmorf)
> YES
>> Proposal 684/1: Bonus Boxes (Wonko)
> YES (Simplicity is good)
>> Proposal 685/2: Would You Like Fries with That? (M-Tek)
> NO (Too complex)
>> Proposal 686/0: Termination Procedures (M-Tek)
> YES
>> Proposal 687/1: The End is Nigh! (Wonko)
> NO
>> Proposal 689/0: I'm right behind you. (The Reality Police)
> NO

Umm... This popped up in my mailbox... It's not listed as having gone
through Nomic.net... Was this by any chance intended for business?
-- 
Wonko

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 14 RESULTS
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:55:33 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 14 May 2002 05:40 pm, you wrote:
> Quoth David E. Smith,
>
> > Proposal 659/0 (Make Things Work) (The Administrator):
> > AFF: Baron von Skippy, Dan, rachel, The Voice
> > NEG: Glotmorf
> > ABS: Congenital Optimist, Wild Card
> > Counts: (4-1-2-0). Measure passes.
> > Created 127/2.
> > Created 573/2.
> > The Gremlin Fund scores 13 points.
>
> Say, didn't this have a 'remove the word 'randomly' from r127' bit in it?
> Why's that still there?

Say, I didn't get that email...

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:56:44 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 14 May 2002 05:54 pm, you wrote:
> Quoth bd,
>
> > On Tuesday 14 May 2002 03:09 am, you wrote:
> >> The following measures are on the ballot for nweek 15:
> >>
> >> Proposal 661/1: One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor
> >> (Baron von Skippy)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 667/0: Finding the right Shelf (Wonko)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 668/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)
> >
> > ABSTAIN
> >
> >> Proposal 669/0: Adminball (The Voice)
> >
> > NO
> >
> >> Proposal 670/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)
> >
> > NO (This is a duplicate of Proposal 668/0)
> >
> >> Proposal 671/0: Process (Wild Card)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 672/0: A Fix for Glotmorf (Wonko)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 673/0: Simplicity (The Voice)
> >
> > YES(I thought I suggested that... not wild card :)
> >
> >> Proposal 674/1: Ministry of the Survey for Ordinance (Wild Card)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 675/0: Insta-Minister (The Administrator)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 676/1: Let's get some points! (Wonko)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 677/0: Requires such dedication. (The Reality Police)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 678/0: Remember me, remember me. (The Reality Police)
> >
> > Err.... YES
> >
> >> Proposal 679/0: Nweek 15 hole plugs (Glotmorf)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 680/1: Less is More: Lit Forms (Glotmorf)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 681/0: Just to Show It Can Be Done -- a Short Dim Ship Tale
> >> (Glotmorf)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 682/0: The People Have Spoken! (Glotmorf)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 683/0: Not Everybody is a Number (Glotmorf)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 684/1: Bonus Boxes (Wonko)
> >
> > YES (Simplicity is good)
> >
> >> Proposal 685/2: Would You Like Fries with That? (M-Tek)
> >
> > NO (Too complex)
> >
> >> Proposal 686/0: Termination Procedures (M-Tek)
> >
> > YES
> >
> >> Proposal 687/1: The End is Nigh! (Wonko)
> >
> > NO
> >
> >> Proposal 689/0: I'm right behind you. (The Reality Police)
> >
> > NO
>
> Umm... This popped up in my mailbox... It's not listed as having gone
> through Nomic.net... Was this by any chance intended for business?

Yes

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:57:55 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 14 May 2002 05:56 pm, you wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 May 2002 05:54 pm, you wrote:
> > Quoth bd,
> >
> > > On Tuesday 14 May 2002 03:09 am, you wrote:
> > >> The following measures are on the ballot for nweek 15:
> > >>
> > >> Proposal 661/1: One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor
> > >> (Baron von Skippy)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 667/0: Finding the right Shelf (Wonko)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 668/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)
> > >
> > > ABSTAIN
> > >
> > >> Proposal 669/0: Adminball (The Voice)
> > >
> > > NO
> > >
> > >> Proposal 670/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)
> > >
> > > NO (This is a duplicate of Proposal 668/0)
> > >
> > >> Proposal 671/0: Process (Wild Card)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 672/0: A Fix for Glotmorf (Wonko)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 673/0: Simplicity (The Voice)
> > >
> > > YES(I thought I suggested that... not wild card :)
> > >
> > >> Proposal 674/1: Ministry of the Survey for Ordinance (Wild Card)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 675/0: Insta-Minister (The Administrator)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 676/1: Let's get some points! (Wonko)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 677/0: Requires such dedication. (The Reality Police)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 678/0: Remember me, remember me. (The Reality Police)
> > >
> > > Err.... YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 679/0: Nweek 15 hole plugs (Glotmorf)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 680/1: Less is More: Lit Forms (Glotmorf)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 681/0: Just to Show It Can Be Done -- a Short Dim Ship Tale
> > >> (Glotmorf)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 682/0: The People Have Spoken! (Glotmorf)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 683/0: Not Everybody is a Number (Glotmorf)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 684/1: Bonus Boxes (Wonko)
> > >
> > > YES (Simplicity is good)
> > >
> > >> Proposal 685/2: Would You Like Fries with That? (M-Tek)
> > >
> > > NO (Too complex)
> > >
> > >> Proposal 686/0: Termination Procedures (M-Tek)
> > >
> > > YES
> > >
> > >> Proposal 687/1: The End is Nigh! (Wonko)
> > >
> > > NO
> > >
> > >> Proposal 689/0: I'm right behind you. (The Reality Police)
> > >
> > > NO
> >
> > Umm... This popped up in my mailbox... It's not listed as having gone
> > through Nomic.net... Was this by any chance intended for business?
>
> Yes

I sent it to the same place the admin sent the ballot, 
[email-masked]

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT 
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:06:40 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

WC wrote:

>  Hmm, are you the Ed Murphy of Internomic SFJ #10?

Probably, though I don't remember what it was.

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:11:52 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 688
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Gavin Doig,

>> CFJ 688 reads:
>> "Statement: A player may drink a glass of champagne at any time, regardless
>> of whether any glasses of champagne exist.
>> 
>> "Analysis:
>> Rule 503 states "A player may drink a glass of champagne by announcing that
>> e is doing so in a public forum, this causes it to be destroyed."
>> Admittedly, the "causes it to be destroyed" clause might *imply* that there
>> has to be a glass of champagne there, but it doesn't actually seem to be
>> *required* anywhere (and note that one could certainly drink someone else's
>> champagne). Common sense would indicate this statement is false, but the
>> rules take precedence, and they say one may drink."
>> 
>> Ruling:
>> After reading the rule in question, I have to, sadly, judge this CFJ to be
>> TRUE.
>> 
>> Analysis:
>> There is no place where a price tag is put on a glass of Champagne.  While I
>> hope that this hole is patched soon, I would also note to uin that, having
>> drunk in excess of two dozen glasses of bubbly (I counted), e now will be
>> inebriated for about 20 nweeks, or, with no switches to wtime, 6 months,
>> real-world. Go ahead, uin, throw a Beer Can. Copper's getting rusty.
>> 
>> Bottoms up,
>> BvS
>> 
> I think my irony meter just overloaded.
> 
> Although - "in excess of two dozen"? I think not, unless you're counting some
> from some previous nWeek.

I count 23. So in 17 mweeks, or 5.5 months, you'll be less than inebriated
again.

Meanwhile...
"There exists a Gremlin known as the Goon Gremlin, or Guido. If Guido is
Active and in Limbo, and an Inebriated player in Limbo makes a proposal, 1d8
is rolled. On a 2 or 3, Guido Smacks that player, taking 4 of eir points. On
a 1, Guido Throws that player in Elbonian Airways style at a random square
of the Grid which is at least 3 squares away from any border of the grid."

Remember him? You might want to include in the 'disinterested' prop. that
they're treated as if they had the immunity idol as well...

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:13:03 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Tuesday 14 May 2002 05:56 pm, you wrote:
>> On Tuesday 14 May 2002 05:54 pm, you wrote:
>>> Quoth bd,
>>> 
>>>> On Tuesday 14 May 2002 03:09 am, you wrote:
>>>>> The following measures are on the ballot for nweek 15:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 661/1: One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor
>>>>> (Baron von Skippy)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 667/0: Finding the right Shelf (Wonko)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 668/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)
>>>> 
>>>> ABSTAIN
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 669/0: Adminball (The Voice)
>>>> 
>>>> NO
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 670/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)
>>>> 
>>>> NO (This is a duplicate of Proposal 668/0)
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 671/0: Process (Wild Card)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 672/0: A Fix for Glotmorf (Wonko)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 673/0: Simplicity (The Voice)
>>>> 
>>>> YES(I thought I suggested that... not wild card :)
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 674/1: Ministry of the Survey for Ordinance (Wild Card)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 675/0: Insta-Minister (The Administrator)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 676/1: Let's get some points! (Wonko)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 677/0: Requires such dedication. (The Reality Police)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 678/0: Remember me, remember me. (The Reality Police)
>>>> 
>>>> Err.... YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 679/0: Nweek 15 hole plugs (Glotmorf)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 680/1: Less is More: Lit Forms (Glotmorf)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 681/0: Just to Show It Can Be Done -- a Short Dim Ship Tale
>>>>> (Glotmorf)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 682/0: The People Have Spoken! (Glotmorf)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 683/0: Not Everybody is a Number (Glotmorf)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 684/1: Bonus Boxes (Wonko)
>>>> 
>>>> YES (Simplicity is good)
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 685/2: Would You Like Fries with That? (M-Tek)
>>>> 
>>>> NO (Too complex)
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 686/0: Termination Procedures (M-Tek)
>>>> 
>>>> YES
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 687/1: The End is Nigh! (Wonko)
>>>> 
>>>> NO
>>>> 
>>>>> Proposal 689/0: I'm right behind you. (The Reality Police)
>>>> 
>>>> NO
>>> 
>>> Umm... This popped up in my mailbox... It's not listed as having gone
>>> through Nomic.net... Was this by any chance intended for business?
>> 
>> Yes
> 
> I sent it to the same place the admin sent the ballot,
> [email-masked]

Well, as long as the admin got it somehow, you're okay. But I've always done
[email-masked]
-- 
Wonko

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 688
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:22:07 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 14 May 2002 06:11 pm, you wrote:
> Quoth Gavin Doig,
>
> >> CFJ 688 reads:
> >> "Statement: A player may drink a glass of champagne at any time,
> >> regardless of whether any glasses of champagne exist.
> >>
> >> "Analysis:
> >> Rule 503 states "A player may drink a glass of champagne by announcing
> >> that e is doing so in a public forum, this causes it to be destroyed."
> >> Admittedly, the "causes it to be destroyed" clause might *imply* that
> >> there has to be a glass of champagne there, but it doesn't actually seem
> >> to be *required* anywhere (and note that one could certainly drink
> >> someone else's champagne). Common sense would indicate this statement is
> >> false, but the rules take precedence, and they say one may drink."
> >>
> >> Ruling:
> >> After reading the rule in question, I have to, sadly, judge this CFJ to
> >> be TRUE.
> >>
> >> Analysis:
> >> There is no place where a price tag is put on a glass of Champagne. 
> >> While I hope that this hole is patched soon, I would also note to uin
> >> that, having drunk in excess of two dozen glasses of bubbly (I counted),
> >> e now will be inebriated for about 20 nweeks, or, with no switches to
> >> wtime, 6 months, real-world. Go ahead, uin, throw a Beer Can. Copper's
> >> getting rusty.
> >>
> >> Bottoms up,
> >> BvS
> >
> > I think my irony meter just overloaded.
> >
> > Although - "in excess of two dozen"? I think not, unless you're counting
> > some from some previous nWeek.
>
> I count 23. So in 17 mweeks, or 5.5 months, you'll be less than inebriated
> again.
>
> Meanwhile...
> "There exists a Gremlin known as the Goon Gremlin, or Guido. If Guido is
> Active and in Limbo, and an Inebriated player in Limbo makes a proposal,
> 1d8 is rolled. On a 2 or 3, Guido Smacks that player, taking 4 of eir
> points. On a 1, Guido Throws that player in Elbonian Airways style at a
> random square of the Grid which is at least 3 squares away from any border
> of the grid."
>
> Remember him? You might want to include in the 'disinterested' prop. that
> they're treated as if they had the immunity idol as well...

Idea:

This is not a proposal: {{

This not-a-proposal is void.

__Hiccups__
{BAC inebriated,2}
Each nday, for each ineberiated player the administrator does there actions in 
the order they are listed:

1. If the player has the attribute Hiccuping, the Attribute is cleared, and 
the remainder of the steps are skipped for this player.
2. BACd6 is rolled, and it is between 2.5 * BAC and 3.5 * BAC, the player 
gains the attribute Hiccuping.

If a player has the attribute Hiccuping, the text '*hic*", not including the 
single quotes, should be inserted into all public forum text between letters. 
There must be at least 1 *hic* per non-proposal sentence.

If a player does not add *hic* properly, they are guilty of Holding It In.

Add Holding It In to the LOGAS
}} End not-a-proposal

The above text is NOT a proposal.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:31:38 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/14/02 at 8:46 AM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>>Proposal 681/0: Just to Show It Can Be Done -- a
>>Short Dim Ship Tale
>	>	(Glotmorf)
>No - this does nothing. Besides, what's it mean for a
>dimship to have 'no wait time'?

You didn't see where "raw fish" was equated to the sushi?  This proposal allows players who have dimships with guns and who get the sushi to explosively transfer said sushi to the outside of another player's dimship.  The "no wait time" refers to the four days one must ordinarily wait in order to transfer the sushi.  In theory, if all players had dimships with guns, the sushi could be transferred with prejudice once per player all within a day.

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:57:36 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/14/02 at 5:28 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>
>> As for not being "processed" like a proposal, so what?  R631 says a Club
>> exists when a player makes a Charter Prop and it's voted on; being voted
>on
>> implies a process that ties it in with the following sentence, which
>> determines whether or not the Charter Prop passes.  That the Charter Prop
>> isn't "processed" by the Administrator as are proposals doesn't keep the
>Club
>> from existing when the proper number of votes are cast for it.
>
>It says no such thing. Nowhere does it say "If a Charter Prop passes, then
>its Charter is added to the ruleset." No distinction is ever made between
>CPs that pass and those that fail, nor is any method given for determing
>when CPs do or do not create their Charters.

No, r631 doesn't say a Charter Prop makes a change to the ruleset.  But it does say that a Charter Prop makes a change to the gamestate.  The gamestate is not the ruleset; the gamestate is the sum of all actions taken since the beginning of the game.  One could even argue that the establishment of the original ruleset was the first action.

Creating a Club is an action.  R631: "Groups, as defined in Rule Five-Seven-Eight, also known as Clubs, can be formed by a Player making a Charter Prop, which is like a normal prop. in that it's added to the nweek ballot and voted on."  Thus a Charter Prop makes a change to the gamestate by bringing about the existence of a Club.  This doesn't require a change to the ruleset, any more than the Gnome Factory has to change the rules every time a gnome is generated.

No, the fundamental concepts of voting, and of passing or failing based on voting, are not defined in r631.  Some of the nature of these terms, however, is derived by the comparison to another game action whose success or failure is determined by voting.  Unless you can come up with a valid interpretation of these concepts that is publicly recognized and makes total hash of the logic behind r631, I think we can go with the precedent established already in the game of what voting, passage and failure mean.

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 688
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:14:07 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think my irony meter just overloaded.
-Oh, go stagger somewhere.-

Although - "in excess of two dozen"? I think not, unless you're counting 
some from some previous nWeek.
-I counted when you sent the thing. There were at least 20, or weren;t you 
paying attention?-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 688
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:25:57 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This is not a proposal: {{

This not-a-proposal is void.

}} End not-a-proposal

The above text is NOT a proposal.

-You sent it to spoon-discuss. You can't send proposals to spoon-discuss, 
not if you want them recognized. Don't worry so much, you'll hurt yourself.-

                                         -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I hope I got this right...
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:27:12 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I take the Grain Gnome
I take the water gnome

-Beer!-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:44:41 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/14/02 at 8:46 AM Daniel Lepage wrote:
> 
>>> Proposal 681/0: Just to Show It Can Be Done -- a
>>> Short Dim Ship Tale
>>> (Glotmorf)
>> No - this does nothing. Besides, what's it mean for a
>> dimship to have 'no wait time'?
> 
> You didn't see where "raw fish" was equated to the sushi?  This proposal
> allows players who have dimships with guns and who get the sushi to
> explosively transfer said sushi to the outside of another player's dimship.
> The "no wait time" refers to the four days one must ordinarily wait in order
> to transfer the sushi.  In theory, if all players had dimships with guns, the
> sushi could be transferred with prejudice once per player all within a day.

So I could shoot the Sushi at someone. So what? Maybe if that caused them to
get the Sushi, it would be worth doing. But even if it did, then there would
be no point to the Sushi anymore. As soon as anyone got it, they'd give it
to someone else. Then it's not fun anymore; it's merely stupid and annoying.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:54:22 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/14/02 at 9:44 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/14/02 at 8:46 AM Daniel Lepage wrote:
>> 
>>>> Proposal 681/0: Just to Show It Can Be Done -- a
>>>> Short Dim Ship Tale
>>>> (Glotmorf)
>>> No - this does nothing. Besides, what's it mean for a
>>> dimship to have 'no wait time'?
>> 
>> You didn't see where "raw fish" was equated to the sushi?  This proposal
>> allows players who have dimships with guns and who get the sushi to
>> explosively transfer said sushi to the outside of another player's
>dimship.
>> The "no wait time" refers to the four days one must ordinarily wait in
>order
>> to transfer the sushi.  In theory, if all players had dimships with
>guns, the
>> sushi could be transferred with prejudice once per player all within a
>day.
>
>So I could shoot the Sushi at someone. So what? Maybe if that caused them
>to
>get the Sushi, it would be worth doing. But even if it did, then there
>would
>be no point to the Sushi anymore. As soon as anyone got it, they'd give it
>to someone else. Then it's not fun anymore; it's merely stupid and
>annoying.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Personally, I only think the sushi is fun when someone else has it.  I voted against it in the first place.  From my perspective, its biggest effect is to bite four days out of one's proposal-making time.  It's not quite as bad as the PIG, which is why it's lasted as long as it has, but I'm not sure it hasn't exhausted its entertainment value, except for newer players that haven't felt the full effects yet.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:04:05 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The newth from AtNomic Thity ithn't all fedorath and feather boath thith time, dearth.  Coming down the runway thith time around are thome of the motht outlandith dethignth theen for a while.  A few may make it to the thopth, but I think we've theen thome that won't make it off the thtage, and thouldn't have made it on.

On 5/14/02 at 7:09 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Proposal 661/1: One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor
>		(Baron von Skippy)

Barroom fathion ith a quethtionable art becauthe the bar ecthperienthe ith dependent on what you want to get out of it.  If you're looking to thnuggle with that cute pair of courderoyth at the end of the bar, you need thomething attenthion-getting but not thcary.  Colorth work well, thinthe, after the firtht few drinkth, focuth geth a little fuzzy, tho thubtle lineth and cuth might go to wathte.

Drinking ithelf, dahlingth, will of courthe never go out of thtyle, ethpethially for thothe who have to be ecthpothed to people who were never in thtyle.  Though I find drinking tequila maketh otherth more charming to me, than me to them.  Thtill, the rugged hithpanic thtanding at a bar thipping a drink doeth make my heart go pitter-pat...

I'll give thith a Yeth.

>Proposal 667/0: Finding the right Shelf (Wonko)

Yeth, dearth, clotheth have theathonth, and one mutht know the right time to put them away in thtorage rather than wear them anyway or throw them away.  That dreth you like but don't wear?  Put it up on the thelf and wait for ith theathon to come back.  That vetht your Eth O bought you for Chrithtmath from Target, that you don't like and don't wear?  The Thalvathion Army alwayth taketh donationth; thome people will wear jutht anything.

Yeth to thith.

>Proposal 669/0: Adminball (The Voice)

And we don't think the judgeth know when they're being played to?  Thpraypainting their nameth acroth your blouthe ithn't going to make it in thith arena, baby.  Nectht time, put it on your backthide tho they feel welcome to put a boot there.

No no no.

>Proposal 670/0: Consent of Ministers (Wild Card)

Well, of courthe you can take it off now, dear.  You were only wearing it becauthe they paid you to.

Yeth.

>Proposal 671/0: Process (Wild Card)

I do like the cut of thith dethign...it hath all the makingth of a crowd-pleather, the product of dethigner teamth.  But I think you forget, you Wild thing you, that thome enthembleth are better when only worn onthe, and I don't thee the "wear onthe" inthtructhion anywhere on the label.

Leth put thith one on the thelf until the label'th ficthed.

>Proposal 672/0: A Fix for Glotmorf (Wonko)

We really do have to make a thpethial cathe for, thall we thay, potht-maternity wear?  Think of the hard-working mother, and her thtruggle to maintain her own fathion dignity, and that of her offthpring, while at the thame time cramming her prethiouth little monthter into an outfit.

Thith ith why we thtill, after all thethe yearth, cannot thcoff at the Garanimal conthept of fathion, where a buthy mother can jutht grab pietheth of an enthemble that have matching tagth and cover her young in thomething the retht of the world will not laugh at.

And I like what thith new dethigner hath done with thith old idea.  I'd thtill like to thee thomething that can be athembled more quickly; perhapth the nectht fathion thow will make a new thtatement in inthtant wear.

Definitely a yeth.

>Proposal 673/0: Simplicity (The Voice)

White cotton thirt, black thlackth and tie?  Thith ithn't a thtatement for fathion; thith ith a thtatement for charity.

No.  Not even with cufflinkth.

>Proposal 674/1: Ministry of the Survey for Ordinance (Wild Card)

I'm not thure there'th room for new wordth and termth in a fathion thow, ethpethially oneth like "harf", which thoundth like thomething one doeth with a hairball.  Bad kitty.

Though a tailor doethn't have to work alone, and thouldn't onthe hith fingerth thtart to bleed...tho, yeth, leth get thith man an apprentithe.  And if he wanth to uthe hith new free time harfing thiny thingth, leth not interfere.

Yeth to thith.

>Proposal 675/0: Insta-Minister (The Administrator)

For thame...trying to bribe the judgeth to boo a competitor!  Ith a good thing the ruleth thay judgeth can't get bribeth, tho you can keep your thiny pointh.

But to offer me a job...product manager for Garanimalth?  I am tho...welcome to chantheth to thupplement my income.  I acthept.

Yeth to thith offer.

>Proposal 676/1: Let's get some points! (Wonko)

Dahling, are you reduthing fathion to the level of the candy bar induthtry?  Peel back the laundering inthtructhionth and thee if you won a prize?  That ith thuch a cheap and obviouth way of boothting thaleth...I'm athamed of you.

Ethpethially thinthe you're the only one with a name on a label...and tho, you're the only one who will really benefit from the thale.  Everyone elthe will be thpending whatever they get on legal feeth trying to collect their prize.

No.  Go home and try thomething with taffeta.

>Proposal 677/0: Requires such dedication. (The Reality Police)

Hath thith dethigner notithed that we are not in Than Tropez or Martheilles?  Thith ith not a clothing-optional thity.

No.  Put thomething on before you're arrethted.

>Proposal 678/0: Remember me, remember me. (The Reality Police)

"Buy my product!  Get rich!  Be in fathion!  You'll be ugly and out of thtyle if you don't!"

An advertithement doeth not a fathion thtatement make.  A fathion claim, perhapth, but we know better, don't we?

If you wanted a thpanky, all you had to do wath athk.  But not here.

No.  I thaid no.

>Proposal 679/0: Nweek 15 hole plugs (Glotmorf)

I really thouldn't comment on my own dethignth.

I vote Yeth.

>Proposal 680/1: Less is More: Lit Forms (Glotmorf)

I really thouldn't comment on my own dethignth.

I vote Yeth.

>Proposal 681/0: Just to Show It Can Be Done -- a Short Dim Ship Tale
>		(Glotmorf)

I really thouldn't comment on my own dethignth.

I vote Yeth.  And thamelethly give it a 15.

>Proposal 682/0: The People Have Spoken! (Glotmorf)

I really thouldn't comment on my own dethignth.

I vote Yeth.

>Proposal 683/0: Not Everybody is a Number (Glotmorf)

I really thouldn't comment on my own dethignth.

I vote Yeth.

>Proposal 684/1: Bonus Boxes (Wonko)

The motht dreadful thing happened during the intermithion...Thome dethigner promithed bonuth boctheth to uth all, but when I got to the booth there jutht weren't any there.  I'm very dithappointed, but I'm willing to give the poor thilly another chanthe...

Leth thelve thith one.

>Proposal 685/2: Would You Like Fries with That? (M-Tek)

I really thouldn't comment on my own dethignth.

I vote Yeth.

>Proposal 686/0: Termination Procedures (M-Tek)

I really thouldn't comment on my own dethignth.

I vote Yeth.

>Proposal 687/1: The End is Nigh! (Wonko)

That ith tho totally fabu.  I don't think I've theen a halftime thow anything like it.  Ethpethially thetting the athtroturf on fire...

I vote Yeth.  Path me a wine cooler, pleathe.

>Proposal 689/0: I'm right behind you. (The Reality Police)

Now now...put up an ugly product, tho that we'll buy the nectht product that ithn't ath ugly?

Thorry, dahling.  Ugly ith ugly.  Let each outfit thtand or fall on ith own merith...or lack thereof.

I vote No.

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 07:25:52 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Hmm... How about,
> {{
> __The Immutable Rule__
> 
> If any player issues a proposal which directly or indirectly mentions this
> rule, or a set of rules which includes this rule, or any text contained in
> this rule, that player is immediately evicted from the game and all eir
> proposals are destroyed. If any rule other than this one mentions this rule,
> that rule is immediately repealed. If any proposal or rule other than this
> one attempts to change this rule, that proposal or rule is entirely void. If
> any proposal is made that, as one of its actions, gives a rule a Chutzpah
> rating higher than that of this rule, this rule automatically amends itself
> to change its Chutzpah to the highest mentioned Chutzpah plus 10. This rule
> takes precedence over all rules.
> }}
>
Easy. Redefine Chutzpah so lower is better, create a rule with precedence which repeals it. Per that CFJ, you can do that in one proosal. Or, if you think the "or indirectly" thing means you can't create that rule within the proosal, redefine chutzpah and make a rule with precedence that prevents players from being evicted or proosals from being destroyed, and then next nweek a separate proosal that creates a rule with precedence (so it's not "entirely void") that repeals it.

> Or, quite simply,
> {{
> __Stagnation__ {* 500 *}
>
> Players may not make proposals. This rule supercedes all other rules.
> }}
>
Well, you might not be able to modify that by proosal, but rule 0 still could (create a new rule, with precedence over that one, etc). Or, since it "supercedes" the other rules, not just takes precedence, you could argue that no previous rule has effect any more, and just repeal it by saying "I repeal it".

And there are almost certainly other methods for each of those.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 07:26:26 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Not the same as apathy.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Until there's something to keep track of a player's previous position on
> the Grid and require that they go back there, I will not vote for any
> "free ticket to Limbo" proposals.
>
I really don't understand what you're complaining about. Since you lose all your points and charm, it's not exactly "free", and since there's no way for a player to become unDisinterested, and thus no way for them to get back on the Grid, there seems little point in keeping track of where they came from.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 07:32:07 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 688
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> Although - "in excess of two dozen"? I think not, unless you're counting 
>> some from some previous nWeek.
> -I counted when you sent the thing. There were at least 20, or weren;t you 
> paying attention?-
>
Oh, *I* was paying attention. I know exactly how many it was, and it was indeed at least 20. And yet, not in excess of two dozen. That still leaves me 5 numbers to play with.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:41:47 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: missing players, votes, etc...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I found out why I hadn't (at the time) noticed that "Ed Murphy" intended
to join the game.

I filter out Nomic-related mail based on the domain name "nomic.net"
whereas Ed, and "bd", both appear to be using "ellipsis.cx". If possible,
please use the former name when sending anything important (i.e.
[email-masked]), as otherwise the email lands in my "stuff
that's not that important so you can take a few days to look at it"
folder.

thanks!
...dave

---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151
http://www.technopagan.org/    http://metadave.net/
http://www.bureau42.com/       http://whatIsay.com/

"I need EVERY brain cell blazing
to outwit my invisible enemies!"
 -- Bart Simpson

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:33:12 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/15/02 at 9:15 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>{{
> {{
> __Request for Comments__
>
> An RFC is intended to be a proposal, but isn't yet.
>
> If a player wishes to discuss their proposal before proposing it they
>may form it up as an RFC (suggested boilerplate avoiding method for
>this is to include `RFC' on the line with the initial open braces).
>
> An RFC can be revised, and is given a serial number like a proposal.
>
> At any point the author of an RFC can state on a public forum that
>they wish to finalise the RFC, at which point it becomes a proposal
>and its serial number is updated.  From this point on it is treated
>like a normal proposal.
>
> Also, the author of an RFC can at any point state on a public forum
>that they wish to can it, in which case the RFC ceases to exist and
>cannot be revised again.
> }}
>}}

You want comments on this? :)

One is that an RFC not be tied to a nweek, but once it's rendered into its final form it be put into the current nweek's ballot.  Otherwise it can stick around for as long as necessary to get it right. (Yes, I know that's implied, but "implied" is getting a bad rap around here these days...)

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:35:58 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Not the same as apathy.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:26:26AM -0500, Gavin Doig wrote:
> I really don't understand what you're complaining about. Since you lose all your points and charm, it's not exactly "free", and since there's no way for a player to become unDisinterested, and thus no way for them to get back on the Grid, there seems little point in keeping track of where they came from.

Ah. I didn't see the part about the score.

So you want to be Disinterested? Have fun, I guess.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:47:30 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> Creating a Club is an action.  R631: "Groups, as defined in Rule
> Five-Seven-Eight, also known as Clubs, can be formed by a Player making a
> Charter Prop, which is like a normal prop. in that it's added to the nweek
> ballot and voted on."  Thus a Charter Prop makes a change to the gamestate by
> bringing about the existence of a Club.  This doesn't require a change to the
> ruleset, any more than the Gnome Factory has to change the rules every time a
> gnome is generated.

Hmmm... So according to that sentence, the only thing a Charter Prop can do
is make Groups. Which means that my CFJ would be false - M-Tek was in fact
created. But nothing else in the charter proposal took effect, as no other
powers save simply creating clubs are given to CPs - so no rules governing
M-Tek exist. And M-Tek has no members, and is subsequently terminated as per
r578.

BTW, it also looks like r631 is telling us that r578 is also known as Clubs.
That's kind of confusing...
-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:58:10 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Club Charter Proposals
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I still don't see the point of allowing Charter Proposals to pass on 1/3
affirmative votes. If only 1/3 of the votes are positive, that means that
only 1/3 of the players who voted on it liked it, so the other 2/3 could
propose to repeal it and it would be repealed.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:23:41 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Sushi control
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan David Amery,

> rachel I flexible sushi
> 
> }wc{

You are? I hadn't noticed :)

-- 
Wonko

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:30:40 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wednesday 15 May 2002 04:15 am, you wrote:
> {{
>  {{
>   __Mentorship__
>
>   A newbie is any player who has been playing for less than two
> nweeks.
>
>   A mentor is a player assigned to help out a newbie.  The newbie that
> they are mentoring is known as a mentee.
>
>   The mentor pool is a set of active players none of whom are newbies
> or mentors.
>
>   Any player who could be part of the mentor pool, but is not can
> become part of the mentor pool by saying that they wish to join the
> mentor pool in a public forum.
>
>   Any player who is part of the mentor pool may cease to be part of
> the mentor pool by announcing that they wish to leave it in a public
> forum.
>
>   When a mentor's mentee ceases to be a newbie then the mentor ceases
> to be a mentor and rejoins the mentor pool.
>
>   If at any point the mentor pool is non-empty and there exists at
> least one newbie who isn't a mentee then the player who has been in
> the mentor pool for the longest time without a break becomes the
> mentor for the newbie who has been a player for the least length of
> time.
>
>   If there exist newbies who are not mentees and the mentor pool is
> empty then players are encouraged to join the mentor pool.
>
>   Newbies are encouraged to ask eir mentor about anything relevant
> to the game, and eir mentor is encouraged to give useful advice to
> eir mentee.
>
>   At the end of eir period of being a mentor, if eir mentee has not
> left the game or gone on Forced Leave, then a mentor receives 5 points
> for being a mentor.  If eir mentee has a positive number of points and
> no Debt then the mentor receives another 5 points.
>  }}
>  Wild Card is added to the mentor pool.
> }}

I'm a newbie!

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: missing players, votes, etc...
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:37:37 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wednesday 15 May 2002 09:41 am, you wrote:
> I found out why I hadn't (at the time) noticed that "Ed Murphy" intended
> to join the game.
>
> I filter out Nomic-related mail based on the domain name "nomic.net"
> whereas Ed, and "bd", both appear to be using "ellipsis.cx". If possible,
> please use the former name when sending anything important (i.e.
> [email-masked]), as otherwise the email lands in my "stuff
> that's not that important so you can take a few days to look at it"
> folder.

Try filtering on 'spoon-business' and 'spoon-discuss' using CONTAINS 
comprisons; that's what I do.

BTW: did you get my grid moves?

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: missing players, votes, etc... 
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:51:59 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Try filtering on 'spoon-business' and 'spoon-discuss' using CONTAINS 
> comprisons; that's what I do. 

 Oh, I do source filtering - pretty much all mail to
[email-masked] is nomic related - one of these days I might
bother filtering it by adding username suffixes too (so
[email-masked] say) and doing more clever
stuff at this end.

 WC (hmm, maybe just jdamery+wildcard@ for nomic stuff - or wildcard@ :)).

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: missing players, votes, etc...
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:07:12 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wednesday 15 May 2002 06:10 pm, you wrote:
> [[ Redirected to the business list because it contains something that may
> be official/relevant in the near future. ]]
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2002, bd wrote:
> > Try filtering on 'spoon-business' and 'spoon-discuss' using CONTAINS
> > comprisons; that's what I do.
>
> Ah, but the only official public forum is "[email-masked]", not
> "[email-masked]". Thus, anything that happens to be sent to
> the latter address never really made it to a public forum. I wouldn't want
> to accidentally recognize something that never happened, now would I?
>
> That's my ruling and I'm sticking to it, unless you can get someone who
> definitely IS a player to CFI it.

Okay, then. But I though *insert some rule here* said(and was recently 
verified) that a public forum was anything the players communicated by ;)

BTW, I sent in some moves on the grid for me, and the grid page hasn't been 
updated. Were they illegal?

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: missing players, votes, etc... 
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 23:57:22 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Okay, then. But I though *insert some rule here* said(and was recently 
> verified) that a public forum was anything the players communicated by ;)

 I believe rule 28/1 agrees with the Admin:

Rule 28/1
Designation of Fora
Last Revision: nweek 8. Revision History
Keywords: Forum

The Administrator may designate a Forum public if it is reasonably
accessible to all Players. The Administrator may designate a Forum
private only if it is not the sole extant public Forum. Only the
Administrator may redesignate Fora.  The Administrator shall maintain
a list of public Fora. All fora which have not been designated as
Public are Private.

[[ Revised by 375/1. ]]

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 20:01:23 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: missing players, votes,
	etc...
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Wednesday 15 May 2002 06:10 pm, you wrote:
>> [[ Redirected to the business list because it contains something that may
>> be official/relevant in the near future. ]]
>> 
>> On Wed, 15 May 2002, bd wrote:
>>> Try filtering on 'spoon-business' and 'spoon-discuss' using CONTAINS
>>> comprisons; that's what I do.
>> 
>> Ah, but the only official public forum is "[email-masked]", not
>> "[email-masked]". Thus, anything that happens to be sent to
>> the latter address never really made it to a public forum. I wouldn't want
>> to accidentally recognize something that never happened, now would I?
>> 
>> That's my ruling and I'm sticking to it, unless you can get someone who
>> definitely IS a player to CFI it.
> 
> Okay, then. But I though *insert some rule here* said(and was recently
> verified) that a public forum was anything the players communicated by ;)
> 
> BTW, I sent in some moves on the grid for me, and the grid page hasn't been
> updated. Were they illegal?

The rule in question states that fora are anything the players communicate
by; but the admin must designate fora public or private (otherwise we'd have
all sorts of problems - if I bumped into another player when I had the
sushi, and talked to them, I'd have to sushi everything I said before I
'posted' any of it.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 20:22:33 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday afternoon)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> Wonko adjusts the heading on eir DimShip, and rules on CFI 622. Due to the
> former, Wonko gains (probably temporarily, but...) the title "Respected
> One".

Woohoo!

> Baron von Skippy judges CFI 688. I appeal, under Rule 404 (the appeal is
> 694/0). Mostly because I can.

Aww... No more free drinks? :(

> About "randomly" in Rule 127: My change was superceded by another change. :)

But yours was the last to occur... What could have superceded it?

> I have no idea what Wild Card was trying to do with the Sushi, but I
> believe e gave it to rachel. That's my interpretation for now, at least.

No, I think e was trying to let Rachel know that e was a flexible Sushi :)

> "Dud Proposal" is not recognized; I don't quite follow Wonko's logic in
> dictating that e still has one proposal for the nweek. If e can explain it
> to me like I'm a five-year-old, maybe... ditto for its revision, "Poof!"

As Glotmorf has insisted, Charter Props are only 'like' normal props. They
are not, apparently, actual proposals. Therefore, the fact that one of my
five proposals was not actually a proposal means that I only have 4
proposals, and can still make another.

> Wonko's responses to proposals 685 and 686 are being treated as non-votes
> (not abstentions). This may become relevant if it is determined that those
> proposals actually exist.

I vote No on both. Just to be safe.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 00:39:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday
 afternoon)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Wonko wrote:

> > About "randomly" in Rule 127: My change was superceded by another change. :)
>
> But yours was the last to occur... What could have superceded it?

I'm gonna try to reconstruct this from memory: p659 (my proposal) passed,
and its changes were implemented. Then it was pointed out to me that I'd
mis-counted the votes on p642, and thus I implemented its changes. Since I
can't rewrite history, even if it is to my benefit, that's just how things
worked out. (It's arguably for the better this way anyhow.)

> As Glotmorf has insisted, Charter Props are only 'like' normal props. They
> are not, apparently, actual proposals. Therefore, the fact that one of my
> five proposals was not actually a proposal means that I only have 4
> proposals, and can still make another.

They look an awful lot like proposals to me... I'm not aware of anything
in the rules that say Charter Props are exempt from Bandwidth Rationing.

...dave "founding member of the 'Vote No On p685' Coalition"

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:07:41 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
	(Wednesday afternoon)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> On Wed, 15 May 2002, Wonko wrote:
> 
>>> About "randomly" in Rule 127: My change was superceded by another change. :)
>> 
>> But yours was the last to occur... What could have superceded it?
> 
> I'm gonna try to reconstruct this from memory: p659 (my proposal) passed,
> and its changes were implemented. Then it was pointed out to me that I'd
> mis-counted the votes on p642, and thus I implemented its changes. Since I
> can't rewrite history, even if it is to my benefit, that's just how things
> worked out. (It's arguably for the better this way anyhow.)

Proposals are processed in order. If your representation of the ruleset was
in error, that's fine, but it's a direct violation of the rules to implement
p642 after 659.

>> As Glotmorf has insisted, Charter Props are only 'like' normal props. They
>> are not, apparently, actual proposals. Therefore, the fact that one of my
>> five proposals was not actually a proposal means that I only have 4
>> proposals, and can still make another.
> 
> They look an awful lot like proposals to me... I'm not aware of anything
> in the rules that say Charter Props are exempt from Bandwidth Rationing.

Well, Glotmorf says they're not proposals. If they aren't proposals, then
they must not count towards things that count proposals.

Personally, I agree that they should be proposals. But if that is indeed the
case, then it's perfectly legal for me to put in a Charter in my other
proposals to make them pass easily. Maybe I'll CFJ. But first I want to know
whether the judge is random or not :)

-- 
Wonko

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: CFJ 688
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:22:14 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>>Although - "in excess of two dozen"? I think not, unless you're counting
 >> some from some previous nWeek.
 > -I counted when you sent the thing. There were at least 20, or weren;t 
you
 > paying attention?-
 >
Oh, *I* was paying attention. I know exactly how many it was, and it was 
indeed at least 20. And yet, not in excess of two dozen. That still leaves 
me 5 numbers to play with.

-Uin, if you think I have nothing better to do with my time than to remember 
how many times you wasted my time in one message, you're sorely mistaken. So 
it was, what, 23, Wonko? I said 24+? So... you're focusing on itty bitty 
details. Nice. Really useful usage of this discussion list.-

                                          -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:30:07 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

>> Proposal 671/0: Process (Wild Card)
> 
> Leth put thith one on the thelf until the label'th ficthed.

>> Proposal 684/1: Bonus Boxes (Wonko)
> 
> Leth thelve thith one.

I think we have a precedent that says that if a rule wants a certain vote,
and it mentions it in capital letters, then you have to copy it exactly. It
was a YEA vs. yes conflict before, and it was ruled that we had to say YEA
to qualify.

Just say SHELVE.

;)

-- 
Wonko

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Sushi control
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:30:18 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>rachel I flexible sushi
 >
 > }wc{

You are? I hadn't noticed :)

--
Wonko

-I think there's a pill you can take for that.-

                                            -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal revision
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:33:03 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There exist bonus boxes of type Inflatable Sirens.

-Aren't those illegal in some states? Sorry, I'm in an odd mood tonight...-

                                        -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday afternoon)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:23:19 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Baron von Skippy judges CFI 688. I appeal, under Rule 404 (the appeal is
694/0). Mostly because I can.

-Yes, but can anyone actually overturn it? I'm pretty sure my Judgement was 
airtight, much as I hate to say it.-

                                          -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:29:52 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/15/02 at 4:47 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> Creating a Club is an action.  R631: "Groups, as defined in Rule
>> Five-Seven-Eight, also known as Clubs, can be formed by a Player making a
>> Charter Prop, which is like a normal prop. in that it's added to the
>nweek
>> ballot and voted on."  Thus a Charter Prop makes a change to the
>gamestate by
>> bringing about the existence of a Club.  This doesn't require a change
>to the
>> ruleset, any more than the Gnome Factory has to change the rules every
>time a
>> gnome is generated.
>
>Hmmm... So according to that sentence, the only thing a Charter Prop can do
>is make Groups. Which means that my CFJ would be false - M-Tek was in fact
>created. But nothing else in the charter proposal took effect, as no other
>powers save simply creating clubs are given to CPs - so no rules governing
>M-Tek exist. And M-Tek has no members, and is subsequently terminated as
>per
>r578.
>
>BTW, it also looks like r631 is telling us that r578 is also known as
>Clubs.
>That's kind of confusing...
>-- 
>Wonko

The "also known as Clubs" bit was thrown in because I wasn't 100% sure that the Societies rule would get changed.  As long as Clubs are defined somewhere as being the same as Societies, I guess it doesn't have to be in r631.

A Charter Prop creates a Club, yes, but it also "must contain a charter that defines the Club."  Which means the nature of the Club being created is defined in the Charter Prop.  The Club, once it exists, has as its properties the nature listed in the Charter Prop.  So the Charter is another change to the gamestate that the Charter Prop makes, or part of the same one, depending on your point of view.

And part of the nature of a Club is that it has at least one member -- the starting member, which in the case of M-Tek would be me.  If I'd specified someone other than me, that player would have to consent to it, otherwise, yes, the club would cease to exist the moment it was created.

Addressing your other message...With the exception of things like the Upper House, Clubs exist primarily for the purposes of their members; if participation in a Club resulted in no change to the gamestate, the members of a Club would not need the permission of the Players for the Club to exist.  However, since Clubs can submit Club Props, which both exploit and affect its members' attributes, I figured the main body of Players should have a chance to deny a Club's existence if it was truly necessary to do so.  In most cases it should never be necessary, because, while the results of Club Props affect players, the effects are still confined to the Club members on a relatively zero-sum basis.

So the provision for 2/3 of the players voting against a club is along the lines of, "I seek your permission, not your blessing."  A Club should only fail to exist if for some reason it's heinous and everyone's against it; otherwise, why the hell not let it be?

Would people have voted for the Charter Prop rule if Clubs could be created with no vote required?

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:37:15 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 BALLOT
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/15/02 at 9:30 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>
>>> Proposal 671/0: Process (Wild Card)
>> 
>> Leth put thith one on the thelf until the label'th ficthed.
>
>>> Proposal 684/1: Bonus Boxes (Wonko)
>> 
>> Leth thelve thith one.
>
>I think we have a precedent that says that if a rule wants a certain vote,
>and it mentions it in capital letters, then you have to copy it exactly. It
>was a YEA vs. yes conflict before, and it was ruled that we had to say YEA
>to qualify.
>
>Just say SHELVE.
>
>;)
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Hm.  Can I say SHELVE?  I thought I'd have to say THELVE.

How exact a science is lisping anyway? :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 00:38:07 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Dead Fish
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/15/02 at 5:39 PM Wonko wrote:

>I think that Babel Fish is not working properly. I put the following into
>it
>(minus the {}'s):
>
>{This is a test. I have recently observed strange behavior coming from this
>device, so I will now endeavor to ascertain this website's validity. Here
>goes nothing!}
>
>And got this out of it (again, minus the {}'s):
>
>{website's?}
>
>In light of its failure, I have concluded that whatever last bit of fun we
>could squeeze out of it is probably gone. I change my vote on prop. 677 to
>No. I'm rooting for the full repeal.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

This is examination. Me the all observed the conduct which is strange recently from system, am like that I will endeavor the fact that now ascertains a website's propriety. From here anything is not the branch,! 

	*	*	*	*	*

That's what I got.  Did you delimit it or something?

						Glotmorf

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: missing players, votes, etc...
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 01:24:30 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

dave wrote:

> I filter out Nomic-related mail based on the domain name "nomic.net"
> whereas Ed, and "bd", both appear to be using "ellipsis.cx". If possible,
> please use the former name when sending anything important (i.e.
> [email-masked]), as otherwise the email lands in my "stuff
> that's not that important so you can take a few days to look at it"
> folder.

Already have done.

("Drop dead, Rimmer."
 "Already have done."
 "Encore.")

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 07:22:23 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday afternoon)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Baron von Skippy judges CFI 688. I appeal, under Rule 404 (the appeal is
> 694/0). Mostly because I can.
>
Actually, I don't think you do. Partly because, although the first sentence says you can, the rest of the rule seems to be player-only. Mostly because you need to make a proosal with the "Player xxx appeals..." stuff in it, which I see no evidence of. (Does the player name you put there have to be your own?)

Fear not, I intend to appeal this on Monday. (I want to wait for the ballot results, because hopefully the appeal procedure will be changing).

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 07:22:53 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Hmmm... So according to that sentence, the only thing a Charter Prop can do
> is make Groups. Which means that my CFJ would be false - M-Tek was in fact
> created. But nothing else in the charter proposal took effect, as no other
> powers save simply creating clubs are given to CPs - so no rules governing
> M-Tek exist. And M-Tek has no members, and is subsequently terminated as per
> r578.
>
I give Wonko the Big Shiny Thing of Utter Correctness.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 07:30:03 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> {{
>  {{
>  __Request for Comments__
> 
> An RFC is intended to be a proposal, but isn't yet.
>
I really don't think this needs to be rule-defined, given that you can do exactly the same thing anyway, except without making the admin have to keep track of it.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday afternoon
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:33:12 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Fear not, I intend to appeal this on Monday. (I want to wait for the ballot 
results, because hopefully the appeal procedure will be changing).

-Out of curiosity, why are you appealing it?-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Incommunicado
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 01:00:50 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 I'll be incommunicado from Friday afternoon until Sunday morning...

 WC.

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 06:27:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: the not-yet-official results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

These are not official voting results, because they don't yet include any
of the score changes. Nothing's been modified on the roster yet, and the
Clock is still Off (per Rule 3).

But I thought you folks might appreciate a sneak peek. (This will also
give everyone a chance to make sure their votes were correctly recorded,
blah blah blah.)

Official results will probably come out sometime this evening. I'll try to
get to it before 7 pm (my time) so that the Clock stoppage is only one
day.

I've already posted all the relevant rules changes, and some
not-yet-officially-recognized proposals and stuff. It's all on the Web
page, even though officially it doesn't exist yet.

Proposal 661/1 (One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor)
(Baron von Skippy):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, The Voice, Wild Card, Wonko
NEG: The Reality Police
Counts: (8-1-0-0). Measure passes.
The first action requested cannot be completed, as Rule 498 doesn't have a
sixth paragraph.
Created 696/0.

Proposal 667/0 (Finding the right Shelf) (Wonko):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, The Reality Police, The
Voice, Wild Card, Wonko
Counts: (9-0-0-0). Measure passes.
Created 580/2.

Proposal 669/0 (Adminball) (The Voice):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, Naath, The Voice, Wonko,
NEG: bd, Glotmorf, Rob, The Reality Police, Wild Card,
Counts: (4-5-0-0). Measure fails.

Proposal 670/0 (Consent of Ministers) (Wild Card):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, The Reality Police, The
Voice, Wild Card, Wonko
NEG: bd
Counts: (8-1-0-0). Measure passes.
Created 697/0.

Proposal 671/0 (Process) (Wild Card):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Rob, The Reality Police, Wild Card, Wonko
NEG: Naath
ABS: The Voice
SHL: Glotmorf
Counts: (6-1-1-1). Measure passes.
Created 404/3.

Proposal 672/0 (A Fix for Glotmorf) (Wonko):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, Wonko
NEG: The Reality Police, The Voice
ABS: Wild Card
Counts: (6-2-1-0). Measure passes.
Since the current ruling on p561 is that it failed, Glotmorf is refunded
the 4 points e was charged for its failure. (When the relevant CFI
returns, this action will be undone, then whatever action results from
that will also be undone by this proposal, so it's all good.)
Created 698/0.
Glotmorf scores 3d6 points, per proposal action.

Proposal 673/0 (Simplicity) (The Voice):
AFF: bd, Naath, Rob, The Voice, Wild Card, Wonko
NEG: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, The Reality Police
Counts: (6-3-0-0). Measure passes.
Created 699/0.

Proposal 674/1 (Ministry of the Survey for Ordinance) (Wild Card):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, The Reality Police, The
Voice, Wild Card, Wonko
Counts: (9-0-0-0). Measure passes.
Created 700/0.

Proposal 675/0 (Insta-Minister) (The Administrator):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, The Reality Police, The
Voice, Wild Card
NEG: Wonko
Counts: (8-1-0-0). Measure passes.
Created 701/0.
Glotmorf becomes the first Insta-Minister.

Proposal 676/1 (Let's get some points!) (Wonko):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Naath, The Reality Police, The Voice, Wonko
NEG: Glotmorf, Rob, Wild Card
Counts: (6-3-0-0). Measure passes.
(This wasn't a Charter Prop, since it never said it was in the non-comment
text of the document. It still passed, though.)
Created 702/0.
The Holy Order of Points has the six members who voted for this proposal.
Created 703/0.
Created 702/1 (repeal)
Created 703/1 (repeal)
Each of those six members gains 20 points.

Proposal 677/0 (Requires such dedication.) (The Reality Police):
AFF: bd, The Reality Police
NEG: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, The Voice, Wonko
ABS: Wild Card
Counts: (2-6-1-0). Measure fails.

Proposal 678/0 (Remember me, remember me.) (The Reality Police):
AFF: bd, Naath, The Reality Police, The Voice, Wonko
NEG: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Rob, Wild Card
Counts: (5-4-0-0). Measure passes.
Measure is vetoed by the Administrator (if Bandwidth Rationing is
repealed, you'll be looking for a new Admin. I like the rest of it, but
the "repeal rule 212" part simply WILL NOT HAPPEN. thank you, drive
through).

Proposal 679/0 (Nweek 15 hole plugs) (Glotmorf):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, The Voice, Wild Card,
Wonko
NEG: The Reality Police
Counts: (8-1-0-0). Measure passes.
Created 625/1.
Created 493/3.

Proposal 680/1 (Less is More: Lit Forms) (Glotmorf):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, Wonko
NEG: The Reality Police, The Voice
ABS: Wild Card
Counts: (6-2-1-0). Measure passes.
Created 437/1.
Repealed 397, 357, 398, 399, and 438.

Proposal 681/0 (Just to Show It Can Be Done -- a Short Dim Ship Tale)
(Glotmorf):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf (15), Naath, Rob (10), Wild Card (12)
NEG: The Reality Police, The Voice, Wonko
Counts: (6-3-0-0). Measure passes.
Created 213/4.

Proposal 682/0 (The People Have Spoken!) (Glotmorf):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Naath, Wonko
NEG: The Reality Police
ABS: Rob, The Voice, Wild Card
Counts: (5-1-3-0). Measure passes.
Created 704/0.

Proposal 683/0 (Not Everybody is a Number) (Glotmorf):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, The Voice, Wild Card
NEG: The Reality Police, Wonko
Counts: (7-2-0-0). Measure passes.
Created 497/1.

Proposal 684/1 (Bonus Boxes) (Wonko):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Naath, Rob, The Voice, Wild Card, Wonko
ABS: The Reality Police
SHL: Glotmorf
Counts: (7-0-1-1). Measure passes.
Created 301/7.
Created 705/0.
All Shiny Things and Scary Dark Things cease to exist, since there is no
longer a rule defining them, and no part of the proposal changed them into
Bonus Boxes.
Cannot revise Rule 349: requested text isn't there, so I can't delete it.
Created 466/1.

Proposal 685/2 (Would You Like Fries with That?) (M-Tek):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Iain, Naath, Rob, The Reality Police, The
Voice, Wild Card
NEG: bd, Wonko
Counts: (8-2-0-0). Measure passes.
Measure is symbolically vetoed (the veto has no effect, but man, will this
be a pain in the ass).
Bean and Wonko each score 1/3 of points

Proposal 686/0 (Termination Procedures) (M-Tek):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Iain, Naath, Rob, The Voice, Wild Card
NEG: The Reality Police, Wonko
Counts: (8-2-0-0). Measure passes.
Created 630/1.

Proposal 687/1 (The End is Nigh!) (Wonko):
AFF: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, The Reality Police, Wild
Card, Wonko
NEG: bd
ABS: The Voice
Counts: (7-1-1-0). Measure passes.
Created 440/6.
Added fire to the List of Grid Substances.
Created 301/8.

Proposal 689/0 (I'm right behind you.) (The Reality Police):
AFF: Naath, The Reality Police, The Voice, Wonko
NEG: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Rob, Wild Card
Counts: (4-5-0-0). Measure fails.

---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151
http://www.technopagan.org/    http://metadave.net/
http://www.bureau42.com/       http://whatIsay.com/

"I need EVERY brain cell blazing
to outwit my invisible enemies!"
 -- Bart Simpson

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 02:28:47 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: von Skippy Overproduction, Inc.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/16/02 at 11:14 PM Alex Truelsen wrote:

>{{
>__Healthy Competition__
>
>Create a charter proposal with the following DINK-delimited text:
>
>DINK
>__von Skippy Overproduction, Inc.__
>
>There exists a Club, called von Skippy Overproduction, Inc., or vSOI.
>
>Players may join vSOI only by consent of the CEO of vSOI, or by unanimous 
>consent of all non-CEO members of vSOI, so long as there are more than two 
>non-CEO members of vSOI.
>
>Non-CEO members of vSOI may be ousted by the CEO or by the consent of all 
>other non-CEO members of vSOI, or they may resign by posting eir intention 
>to do so in a message to a public forum. The CEO of vSOI may resign as
>well, 
>in which case the member who has been a member the longest becomes CEO, or
>e 
>may be Sacked by al non-CEO members posting messages to a Public Forum 
>declaring that they wish to Sack the CEO, in which case the first member
>to 
>declare eir intention to Sack the CEO shall become CEO. If not all members 
>declare eir intention to Sack the CEO within one nweek of the first
>player's 
>declaration, the first player to declare eir intention shall be ousted. A 
>Sacked CEO is no longer a member of vSOI.
>
>vSOI may not make proposals.
>
>At the start of each nweek, each member of vSOI shall recieve one random 
>Gnome. Any member may also purchase a random Gnome for 5 points, or a 
>specific Gnome for 10 points, from the vSOI Gnome Account. Any non-member 
>player may purchase a random Gnome from the vSOI Gnome Account for 10 
>points, or a specific Gnome for 15 points. If at any time there are more 
>than 200 points in the Gnome Account, distribute all points in the Gnome 
>Account evenly between all members of vSOI, giving any remainder to the 
>Gremlin Fund.
>
>The CEO of vSOI may not also be the Prez of M-Tek. In the event of this 
>happening, the CEO of vSOI shall be replaced as though e had resigned, and 
>shall be made a non-CEO member of vSOI.
>
>Baron von Skippy is the first member of vSOI, and the first CEO of vSOI.
>DINK
>}}
>
>[[If any of that is confusing/confused, please tell me. It's late, and
>I've 
>never made a Charter Prop before.]]

It's my belief -- hence the argument with Wonko -- that the current version of the charter prop rule doesn't grant a charter prop the authority to make a charter that does anything but say how members can join, how members can be ousted, who the first member is, and whether and how the club can make a club prop.  So stuff that controls the creation of gnomes and the assigning of them to people is outside the authority of the charter prop.

There's a reason for this.

My idea for charter props was a quickie way of creating clubs, one that didn't require the approval of a lot of players but nevertheless could be overturned if everyone decided to do so.  This should be acceptable for any club that doesn't have a significant impact on the rest of the game, but only exists for the sake of its members.  Things that create and distribute points, or create and distribute grid objects, etc. are things everyone should be willing to approve; otherwise, as Wonko's example indicated, it would be blatantly unfair.

Now...this isn't to say that a club can't be formed whose members get gnomes as door prizes.  It's just that it'd have to be created using a regular proposal, which would require at least 1/2 of the votes to be affirmative.

Hey, you never know...

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 02:59:20 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: the not-yet-official results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/17/02 at 6:27 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Proposal 672/0 (A Fix for Glotmorf) (Wonko):
>AFF: Baron von Skippy, bd, Glotmorf, Naath, Rob, Wonko
>NEG: The Reality Police, The Voice
>ABS: Wild Card
>Counts: (6-2-1-0). Measure passes.
>Since the current ruling on p561 is that it failed, Glotmorf is refunded
>the 4 points e was charged for its failure. (When the relevant CFI
>returns, this action will be undone, then whatever action results from
>that will also be undone by this proposal, so it's all good.)
>Created 698/0.
>Glotmorf scores 3d6 points, per proposal action.

If this has actually passed, I'll rescind my CFJ 620. (I still think it's true, but there's no point in pursuing it.)

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 07:27:23 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: the not-yet-official results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Proposal 678/0 (Remember me, remember me.) (The Reality Police):
> AFF: bd, Naath, The Reality Police, The Voice, Wonko
> NEG: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Rob, Wild Card
> Counts: (5-4-0-0). Measure passes.
> Measure is vetoed by the Administrator (if Bandwidth Rationing is
> repealed, you'll be looking for a new Admin. I like the rest of it, but
> the "repeal rule 212" part simply WILL NOT HAPPEN. thank you, drive
> through).
>
Boo!

But... you like the rest of it? That's like saying "I liked the Matrix, apart from all the fight scenes and bits about living in a computer simulation."

I wish P685 had existed; that would have accomplished everything I wanted. Actually, now that I think about it, at the start of the game the rules said nothing about what happened when a proosal passed. I think we can use that as precedent to say that charter props do stuff, so 685 existed.

<mrburns>Excellent.</mrburns>

Oh, and Dave? <kosh>There is a hole in your veto</kosh>. 2, probably. I'd tell you what the second one is, but I'm rather hoping you miss it. ;-)

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 07:28:36 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
    (Wednesday afternoon
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> Fear not, I intend to appeal this on Monday. (I want to wait for the ballot 
>> results, because hopefully the appeal procedure will be changing).
>>
> -Out of curiosity, why are you appealing it?-
>
"There is no place where a price tag is put on a glass of Champagne." I gather from this that you're saying that one can therefore buy Champagne for 0 points, just as one can buy beer for 5 points. However, that is only the case because the rules say "Players who are in Limbo can buy Beer for five points", which both defines the price and permits the purchase. While there is no price defined for Champagne, there is likewise no method of purchase defined, and it is therefore impossible under r18 (if you're sensible), or rule 393 (otherwise).

Which is not to say your verdict may not be correct, but since you have given no evidence that you've even considered my given analysis, I feel obliged to send this to a higher court.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 07:29:44 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: Roster incompleteness
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I have been recognising an Emergency, per rule 0, for some time now.

The Reality Police.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Roster incompleteness 
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:51:37 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I have been recognising an Emergency, per rule 0, for some time now.
> 
 For what reason?

 WC.

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 08:20:35 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Roster incompleteness
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> I have been recognising an Emergency, per rule 0, for some time now.
>> 
> For what reason?
>
Oh, something was broken. I forget what, but it's fixed now. Probably the statute of limitations (that was a *horrendous* mess), but possibly something else.

And I've never actually stopped recognising the emergency.

On a related note, can you remember how Acka's statute was worded? I seem to remember it made things legal if they weren't noticed for 2 weeks, but I couldn't see it in the last version of the rules I could find, and I'm not sure of the details.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:45:54 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: the not-yet-official results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 17 May 2002, Gavin Doig wrote:

> But... you like the rest of it? That's like saying "I liked the Matrix,
> apart from all the fight scenes and bits about living in a computer
> simulation."

Heh.

I honestly couldn't care less about the rest of it -- everything other
than "repeal Bandwidth Rationing" pretty much boils down to tweaking a few
numbers.

But, and I must be blunt here, my time is rather finite. Unlike some of
the players, I still haven't found a clever workaround for that whole "24
hours per day, no more" bug in the universe.

(And no, redefining the hour doesn't help for this instance.)

> I wish P685 had existed; that would have accomplished everything I
> wanted. Actually, now that I think about it, at the start of the game
> the rules said nothing about what happened when a proosal passed. I
> think we can use that as precedent to say that charter props do stuff,
> so 685 existed.

I still don't see a sound argument (IMO, natch) that says M-Tek (and thus
p685) don't exist. Then again, I'm not actually a player, rendering my
opinion just shy of meaningless.

> Oh, and Dave? <kosh>There is a hole in your veto</kosh>. 2, probably.
> I'd tell you what the second one is, but I'm rather hoping you miss it.

The only one of which I'm aware is the fact that the veto isn't official
yet because it was posted to -discuss, but then again nothing in that
email was official for that reason. And the Clock is still Off for the
same reason.

"Understanding is a three-edged sword."

(There is no relevance to the above, but as long as we're trading B5
quotes...)

...dave

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: the not-yet-official results
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 07:28:05 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

dave wrote:

> These are not official voting results, because they don't yet include any
> of the score changes. Nothing's been modified on the roster yet, and the
> Clock is still Off (per Rule 3).
> 
> But I thought you folks might appreciate a sneak peek. (This will also
> give everyone a chance to make sure their votes were correctly recorded,
> blah blah blah.)

Mine aren't in there.  And dammit, I've misplaced my copy of my voting
message... can someone bounce it here, please?

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:56:31 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: the not-yet-official results
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 17 May 2002, Ed Murphy wrote:

> Mine aren't in there.  And dammit, I've misplaced my copy of my voting
> message... can someone bounce it here, please?

That's because you never joined the game on a public forum.

...dave

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday afternoon
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:41:48 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"There is no place where a price tag is put on a glass of Champagne." I 
gather from this that you're saying that one can therefore buy Champagne for 
0 points, just as one can buy beer for 5 points.
-If there's no price tag, there's no price. I was saying you're right, it 
looks as though you can just pull Champagne out of thin air. This is 
semantics.-

However, that is only the case because the rules say "Players who are in 
Limbo can buy Beer for five points", which both defines the price and 
permits the purchase. While there is no price defined for Champagne, there 
is likewise no method of purchase defined, and it is therefore impossible 
under r18 (if you're sensible), or rule 393 (otherwise).
-Therin lies the major problem- you can't purchase it at all. It just 
exists. I might have 12,000 glasses of Champagne crammed into my Gnome Bag, 
I haven't worked up the courage to look.-

Which is not to say your verdict may not be correct, but since you have 
given no evidence that you've even considered my given analysis, I feel 
obliged to send this to a higher court.
-*rubs temples* Ther is no higher court, just a different one... and if I 
had ignored your analysis, I would have told you you were being stupid, 
exercised common sense, and declared it false. Granted, I might have been 
wrong, as the rules take precedence. So see? I looked at your analysis...-

uin.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Roster incompleteness 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:32:13 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "Gavin Doig":
> 
> On a related note, can you remember how Acka's statute was worded? I seem to 
> remember it made things legal if they weren't noticed for 2 weeks, but I coul
> dn't see it in the last version of the rules I could find, and I'm not sure o
> f the details.
> 
> uin.

Where is Acka archived, BTW? It occurs to me that I don't have a copy of it 
in the Nomic Museum.

-- 
J.

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 18:03:42 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ on Holy Order of Points
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/17/02 at 5:22 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>Statement: Players who voted for proposal 676 [["Let's get some
>points!"]] did not recieve 20 points each.
>
>Reasoning: Rule 155, paragraph 2, says that "If a proposal, by adding,
>changing, or repealing rules, will generate effects which are based on
>the way players vote on that proposal, or any other specific proposal or
>proposals identified in the proposal, then those rules generate no
>effects based on the way players vote on that particular proposal." 
>
>Rule 702/0 said "Every player who voted for the proposal which created
>this rule is initially a member of the Holy Order of Points.", which is
>quite clearly an effect based on the way players voted on the proposal.
>That particular effect, therefore, should not have happened, so no
>players were ever members of the Holy Order of Points, so they could not
>gain 20 points for being in it.
>
>-- 
>Rob Speer

This won't work because the clock is off right now.  Besides, I've got a better one:

Players who voted for proposal 676 did not become members of the Holy Order of Points.  Therefore it still exists, with Wonko as the sole member.

Same reasoning.

						Glotmorf

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ on Holy Order of Points
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:21:13 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Glotmorf wrote:

> Players who voted for proposal 676 did not become members of the Holy Order
> of Points.  Therefore it still exists, with Wonko as the sole member.

This is flawed, or at least ambiguous, if Wonko voted for proposal 676.

"No player became a member of the Holy Order of Points solely due to voting
 for proposal 676" should work.

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:39:27 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I become a player (attempt #2)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 05:22:51PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I also suggest that the Administrator designate <[email-masked]>
> as a Public Forum.  Is there a strong reason not to do so?

The fact that many of us filter [email-masked] and
[email-masked] into a separate folder, and don't want to have
to change the filters. Where'd you get [email-masked] from,
anyway?
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 01:25:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Clock insights
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It occurs to me that we really oughta have some sort of mechanism for
allowing basic game stuff to happen while the Clock is Off...

I can't recognize Ed Murphy's (second) attempt to join the game, or Rob's
CFJ, because both occurred while the Clock was Off.

Unfortunately, I have other plans for my one proposal for the nweek, and I
don't want to put out another big ugly omnibus proposal, because those end
up having something that everyone hates just enough to reject the whole,
and then none of the good things get done either.

...dave

---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151
http://www.technopagan.org/    http://metadave.net/
http://www.bureau42.com/       http://whatIsay.com/

"I need EVERY brain cell blazing
to outwit my invisible enemies!"
 -- Bart Simpson

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 22:24:07 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 RESULTS
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/18/02 at 1:19 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Proposal 685/2 (Would You Like Fries with That?) (M-Tek):
>AFF: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Iain, Naath, Rob, The Reality Police, The
>Voice, Wild Card
>NEG: bd, Wonko
>Counts: (8-2-0-0). Measure passes.
>Measure is symbolically vetoed (the veto has no effect, but man, will this
>be a pain in the ass).
>The points are a bit of a juggle: It scores 15 points, of which 5 are
>given to Bean and Wonko, and 5 remain for M-Tek, which should be split
>between its members. I choose to award 2 to Iain and 3 to the club's Prez,
>Glotmorf; if the latter feels that split isn't equitable, e can rectify it
>emself.
>(Aside: the affirmative votes for this, for purposes of the Token of
>Proposals, cannot be credited to any player.)

R630 says "the members of the Club each get the same dim. changes as a Player would, times (1/(number of Players in the Club)), rounded up."  That means Iain and I would each get 3 points.  That's something I can't rectify.

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 22:39:24 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (end of nweek stuff)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/18/02 at 1:20 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Luigi Breaks one of Wild Card's Limbs, after collecting 30 points. (I
>dunno if this is a bug or a feature, but the rule says Luigi collects
>before interest is added. It also says that, even if the player can repay
>the debt, a Limb is still Broken for failing to voluntarily repay.)

Feature.  A loan shark doesn't care if you can pay...only if you do.

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:12:30 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/17/02 at 11:11 PM The Voice wrote:

>{{ __Time Freeze, my butt__
>
>Amend rule 3 by changing the text,
>
>"If the Clock is Off, no player may take any game-related actions except 
>actions which the rules specifically say may be taken while The Clock is 
>Off."
>
>To the following:
>
>"If the Clock is Off, any game-related actions taken by players are
>recorded 
>by the Administrator.  They are then implemented/recognized in reverse
>order 
>of eir recieving them once the Clock is On."
>
>}}
>
>Didn't want it to just be like the Clock was on...
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

Why reverse order?

						Glotmorf

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:18:37 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
>Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:12:30 -0400
>
>On 5/17/02 at 11:11 PM The Voice wrote:
>
> >{{ __Time Freeze, my butt__
> >
> >Amend rule 3 by changing the text,
> >
> >"If the Clock is Off, no player may take any game-related actions except
> >actions which the rules specifically say may be taken while The Clock is
> >Off."
> >
> >To the following:
> >
> >"If the Clock is Off, any game-related actions taken by players are
> >recorded
> >by the Administrator.  They are then implemented/recognized in reverse
> >order
> >of eir recieving them once the Clock is On."
> >
> >}}
> >
> >Didn't want it to just be like the Clock was on...
> >
> >-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>
>Why reverse order?
>
>						Glotmorf
>
>

See the comment after the proposal ended... it seemed like an effective way 
to make it different than if the Clock were just on... think of it as the 
Administrator's *recognize* box was getting filled up, and he started from 
the top.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:20:51 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/17/02 at 11:18 PM The Voice wrote:

>>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>To: [email-masked]
>>Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
>>Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:12:30 -0400
>>
>>On 5/17/02 at 11:11 PM The Voice wrote:
>>
>> >{{ __Time Freeze, my butt__
>> >
>> >Amend rule 3 by changing the text,
>> >
>> >"If the Clock is Off, no player may take any game-related actions except
>> >actions which the rules specifically say may be taken while The Clock is
>> >Off."
>> >
>> >To the following:
>> >
>> >"If the Clock is Off, any game-related actions taken by players are
>> >recorded
>> >by the Administrator.  They are then implemented/recognized in reverse
>> >order
>> >of eir recieving them once the Clock is On."
>> >
>> >}}
>> >
>> >Didn't want it to just be like the Clock was on...
>> >
>> >-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>>
>>Why reverse order?
>>
>>						Glotmorf
>>
>>
>
>See the comment after the proposal ended... it seemed like an effective
>way 
>to make it different than if the Clock were just on... think of it as the 
>Administrator's *recognize* box was getting filled up, and he started from 
>the top.
>
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

That...would get really screwy, with people trying to counteract submitted actions with actions that would occur before the already-submitted actions.  I strongly recommend keeping it a simple buffered queue.

						Glotmorf

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:27:03 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
>Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:20:51 -0400
>
>On 5/17/02 at 11:18 PM The Voice wrote:
>
> >>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
> >>Reply-To: [email-masked]
> >>To: [email-masked]
> >>Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
> >>Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:12:30 -0400
> >>
> >>On 5/17/02 at 11:11 PM The Voice wrote:
> >>
> >> >{{ __Time Freeze, my butt__
> >> >
> >> >Amend rule 3 by changing the text,
> >> >
> >> >"If the Clock is Off, no player may take any game-related actions 
>except
> >> >actions which the rules specifically say may be taken while The Clock 
>is
> >> >Off."
> >> >
> >> >To the following:
> >> >
> >> >"If the Clock is Off, any game-related actions taken by players are
> >> >recorded
> >> >by the Administrator.  They are then implemented/recognized in reverse
> >> >order
> >> >of eir recieving them once the Clock is On."
> >> >
> >> >}}
> >> >
> >> >Didn't want it to just be like the Clock was on...
> >> >
> >> >-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
> >>
> >>Why reverse order?
> >>
> >>						Glotmorf
> >>
> >>
> >
> >See the comment after the proposal ended... it seemed like an effective
> >way
> >to make it different than if the Clock were just on... think of it as the
> >Administrator's *recognize* box was getting filled up, and he started 
>from
> >the top.
> >
> >
> >-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>
>That...would get really screwy, with people trying to counteract submitted 
>actions with actions that would occur before the already-submitted actions. 
>  I strongly recommend keeping it a simple buffered queue.
>
>						Glotmorf

Aah, but then why turn the Clock off at all?  that's just what happens 
normally.  Perhaps something that says, "with the exception of changes of 
actions that are to be implemented afterwards" or the like?

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:36:01 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/17/02 at 11:27 PM The Voice wrote:

>>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>To: [email-masked]
>>Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
>>Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:20:51 -0400
>>
>>On 5/17/02 at 11:18 PM The Voice wrote:
>>
>> >>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>> >>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>> >>To: [email-masked]
>> >>Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
>> >>Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:12:30 -0400
>> >>
>> >>On 5/17/02 at 11:11 PM The Voice wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >{{ __Time Freeze, my butt__
>> >> >
>> >> >Amend rule 3 by changing the text,
>> >> >
>> >> >"If the Clock is Off, no player may take any game-related actions 
>>except
>> >> >actions which the rules specifically say may be taken while The
>Clock 
>>is
>> >> >Off."
>> >> >
>> >> >To the following:
>> >> >
>> >> >"If the Clock is Off, any game-related actions taken by players are
>> >> >recorded
>> >> >by the Administrator.  They are then implemented/recognized in
>reverse
>> >> >order
>> >> >of eir recieving them once the Clock is On."
>> >> >
>> >> >}}
>> >> >
>> >> >Didn't want it to just be like the Clock was on...
>> >> >
>> >> >-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>> >>
>> >>Why reverse order?
>> >>
>> >>						Glotmorf
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >See the comment after the proposal ended... it seemed like an effective
>> >way
>> >to make it different than if the Clock were just on... think of it as
>the
>> >Administrator's *recognize* box was getting filled up, and he started 
>>from
>> >the top.
>> >
>> >
>> >-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>>
>>That...would get really screwy, with people trying to counteract
>submitted 
>>actions with actions that would occur before the already-submitted
>actions. 
>>  I strongly recommend keeping it a simple buffered queue.
>>
>>						Glotmorf
>
>Aah, but then why turn the Clock off at all?  that's just what happens 
>normally.  Perhaps something that says, "with the exception of changes of 
>actions that are to be implemented afterwards" or the like?
>
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

I proposed turning the Clock off so that, no matter how much time may be required to implement all the end-of-the-nweek events, it wouldn't cut into the time I officially had to make proposals and take game actions.  If Dave needs a day, he can take a day.  If Dave needs a week, he can take a week.  Long as I still get my ten ndays.

And no, as Dave just demonstrated, that's not just what happens normally.  He specifically didn't recognize certain actions taken while the Clock was off.  That's why he made the suggestion he did.

But suppose Bean and I both have badly crippled dimships, and while the clock's off I buffer a shot at em.  Eir response to that is to buffer a shot at me.  But eir shot would occur first, even if, had mine gone first, it'd've forced eir ship to land.  The gamestate's screwy enough to keep track of now without having to keep track of layers of retroactive actions.

Though it's a fascinating idea for a nomic game.  That is...some OTHER nomic game that doesn't already have the subgames this one does.

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:50:10 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"If the Clock is Off, any game-related actions taken by players are recorded 
by the Administrator.  They are then implemented/recognized in reverse order 
of eir recieving them once the Clock is On."

-So, it's like a stack of instants? *sudden rational thought* Uh, does 
anyone here play Magic?-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 05:43:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 17 May 2002, Alex Truelsen wrote:

> -So, it's like a stack of instants? *sudden rational thought* Uh, does
> anyone here play Magic?-

Yup.

I've been thinking about proposing "Untap, Upkeep..." to make some sort of
nweekly checklist. (Basically codifying what I informally maintain now,
mostly to (try to) keep straight everything that has to be done during the
nweek transition periods.)

This would also have the benefit of clarifying the order in which some of
these things are supposed to take place. Should I award the Token of
Proposals before or after awarding the Immunity Idol, for instance? I've
been trying to do things in ascending rule-number order, because I can't
think of any better system. Do Curt and Rod move before or after the Yeti?
(I doubt it'll matter, but one never knows...)

For amusement, said Checklist is at /~g6/checklist.txt (or something like
that). Anyone who's really really bored might want to pore over the rules
and see if I've missed anything (I've been keeping it since nweek 4 or so,
and I desperately hope it's current...)

...dave

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 01:50:37 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/18/02 at 5:43 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Fri, 17 May 2002, Alex Truelsen wrote:
>
>> -So, it's like a stack of instants? *sudden rational thought* Uh, does
>> anyone here play Magic?-
>
>Yup.
>
>I've been thinking about proposing "Untap, Upkeep..." to make some sort of
>nweekly checklist. (Basically codifying what I informally maintain now,
>mostly to (try to) keep straight everything that has to be done during the
>nweek transition periods.)
>
>This would also have the benefit of clarifying the order in which some of
>these things are supposed to take place. Should I award the Token of
>Proposals before or after awarding the Immunity Idol, for instance? I've
>been trying to do things in ascending rule-number order, because I can't
>think of any better system. Do Curt and Rod move before or after the Yeti?
>(I doubt it'll matter, but one never knows...)
>
>For amusement, said Checklist is at /~g6/checklist.txt (or something like
>that). Anyone who's really really bored might want to pore over the rules
>and see if I've missed anything (I've been keeping it since nweek 4 or so,
>and I desperately hope it's current...)
>
>...dave

I'd been toying with the idea of having all actions (yes, *all* actions) be web-form-submitted.  Even if this is little more than a textarea that someone would fill in and click a submit button for, this would at least shove the actions into a database that could be displayed with check-off buttons on the side.  They'd be available for review by players, and you could then work down the list as you recognized items and dealt with them.

As the recognition and dealing-with of items got fully automated, those items would have their own form as opposed to the textarea.  And if recognition was automatic, they wouldn't have to appear on the recognition queue any more, though they might still be available for public review.

Whaddaya think?

						Glotmorf

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I become a player (attempt #2)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 22:49:24 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Rob wrote:

> > I also suggest that the Administrator designate <[email-masked]>
> > as a Public Forum.  Is there a strong reason not to do so?

> The fact that many of us filter [email-masked] and
> [email-masked] into a separate folder, and don't want to have
> to change the filters. Where'd you get [email-masked] from,
> anyway?

Either from the Wiki, or from majordomo, I think.  I'm not totally sure
any more.

--
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 22:53:49 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Alex Truelsen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> -So, it's like a stack of instants? *sudden rational thought* Uh, does 
> anyone here play Magic?-

Don't make us thump you.  :)

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 06:05:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 18 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> I'd been toying with the idea of having all actions (yes, *all* actions)
> be web-form-submitted.

[ snip ]

Hey, you wanna write it, go right ahead. :-)

Seriously, I'd pondered the notion more than once, but it would involve
at least a couple hours of coding that I don't generally have. And getting
it RIGHT, and getting it secure (so players can't easily forge others'
actions) would be a smidge tricky.

...dave

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 02:05:59 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday night)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/18/02 at 5:56 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Fortunately, there IS an Insta-Minister, Glotmorf. Be sure to give em a
>nice warm welcome by stretching out those Insta-Slide-Rules! (Btw,
>Glotmorf, I'm sorta assuming that you'll also be tracking players'
>Insta-Rulers, as this would be necessary for you to do your job. If you're
>not planning to do so, lemme know so we can work something out.)

I can, but it'd be nice to have read access to the Players table.

Please add a link to the B Nomic page to the Insta-Ministry at

http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/instaministry.html

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 06:13:47 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday
 night)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 18 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> I can, but it'd be nice to have read access to the Players table.

I overlooked that one? Jeepers. Sorry. Fixed, I think. (I'm a bit rusty
with MySQL grants, and I don't have access to the system tables, so I
can't see what I've done. :)

> Please add a link to the B Nomic page to the Insta-Ministry

done.

...dave

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 06:14:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Entropy!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Note that, with Ed Murphy joining, the Entropy thresholds dropped again.

Universal entropy: 262

3-syllable Entropy threshold: 14.705882352941
Affected players:
Congenital Optimist
Bean
Baron von Skippy

2-syllable threshold: 22.058823529412
Affected players:
Wild Card

1-syllable threshold: 29.411764705882
Affected players:
Wonko
Glotmorf
The Voice

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I become a player (attempt 
 #2)
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 09:20:12 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "Ed Murphy":
> Rob wrote:
> 
> > > I also suggest that the Administrator designate <spoon-business@ellipsis.
> cx>
> > > as a Public Forum.  Is there a strong reason not to do so?
> 
> > The fact that many of us filter [email-masked] and
> > [email-masked] into a separate folder, and don't want to have
> > to change the filters. Where'd you get [email-masked] from,
> > anyway?
> 
> Either from the Wiki, or from majordomo, I think.  I'm not totally sure
> any more.

nomic.net is a CNAME for charybdis.ellipsis.cx. At least one player's mail 
server is happier when the Sender is ellipsis.cx, so I changed it to that. 
Sorry if that caused problems for anyone. I see no reason to redesignate 
the public forum as a result, because [email-masked] is the same 
list as [email-masked].

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave... 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 09:21:55 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "Ed Murphy":
> Alex Truelsen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > -So, it's like a stack of instants? *sudden rational thought* Uh, does 
> > anyone here play Magic?-
> 
> Don't make us thump you.  :)

If you guys change the game into Magic, I might have to tap that Red Mana 
Battery I've been charging... :)

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 17:02:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: TEST. please ignore.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I hate to do this, but I'm testing out some new mail filters, and I *need*
to be sure they'll catch this list correctly (i.e. not decide it's spam).

We apologize for the inconvenience.

...dave

---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151
http://www.technopagan.org/    http://metadave.net/
http://www.bureau42.com/       http://whatIsay.com/

"I need EVERY brain cell blazing
to outwit my invisible enemies!"
 -- Bart Simpson

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I become a player (attempt #2)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 12:05:37 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

J. wrote:

> nomic.net is a CNAME for charybdis.ellipsis.cx. At least one player's mail 
> server is happier when the Sender is ellipsis.cx, so I changed it to that. 
> Sorry if that caused problems for anyone. I see no reason to redesignate 
> the public forum as a result, because [email-masked] is the same 
> list as [email-masked].

Except that the Administrator has declared them to be different.  And I don't
really want to argue otherwise, as it would require an impossibly ugly game
rewind to catch *all* messages sent to [email-masked] and ignored
for that reason.

There are at least two non-trivial cases:  my first attempt at becoming a
player, and my attempted votes last nweek.  There are probably others as
well, possibly much further back in time.

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: I become a player (attempt 
 #2)
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 14:34:05 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake "Ed Murphy":
> J. wrote:
> 
> > nomic.net is a CNAME for charybdis.ellipsis.cx. At least one player's mail 
> > server is happier when the Sender is ellipsis.cx, so I changed it to that. 
> > Sorry if that caused problems for anyone. I see no reason to redesignate 
> > the public forum as a result, because [email-masked] is the same 
> > list as [email-masked].
> 
> Except that the Administrator has declared them to be different.  And I don't
> really want to argue otherwise, as it would require an impossibly ugly game
> rewind to catch *all* messages sent to [email-masked] and ignored
> for that reason.

Well, don't send messages to [email-masked]; keep sending them 
to [email-masked]. The only thing I changed is the Sender header 
that shows up on messages distributed to the list. The list address has not 
changed. And if mail shows up on the list, then it's coming from the public 
forum. So I don't see a problem here.

-- 
J.

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 18:36:49 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: la
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/18/02 at 1:32 PM Naath Thabana wrote:

>I move to (13,9)
>
>
>CFI
>Glotmorf can't join the Holy order of Points.  There's
>nothing in the club prop that says how you can join
>it, other than the (illgal) method of joining by
>voting for it.
>
>Naath

Well, actually there is...

"New players may join by announcing eir intention to do so on a Public Forum; Any member of the Holy Order of Points may be kicked out by any other member of the Holy Order of Points. [[This is irrelevant anyway]]"

...but this is an interesting point, since it does say "new players".  Does that mean the Holy Order of Points sticks around until half as many people as we have players now join the game and then join the club?

Assuming it exists right now at all, of course.

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 18:44:05 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>-So, it's like a stack of instants? *sudden rational thought* Uh, does
 > anyone here play Magic?-

Don't make us thump you.  :)

-*blink blink* I'll take that as a no?-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 18:43:01 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: fine then.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/18/02 at 1:10 PM The Voice wrote:

>Replace the last paragraph of proposal 707, __Time Freeze, my butt__ with 
>the following -0- delimited text:
>
>-0-
>"If the Clock is Off, any game-related actions taken by players are 
>implemented/recognized in the order in which they were recieved when the 
>Clock is turned On."
>-0-
>
>Ya happy?
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

Ecstatic, though there's something I thought of today over lunch...Add to the above that 

"Said actions are subject to the ruleset in use at the time they are recognized."

That way you don't get a bunch of retro actions because they were submitted before the rule changes were implemented, but after the votes were in for them.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 18:49:25 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Von Skippy Overproduction
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Baron...You might want to look at the wording of your proposal.  The way I see it right now, it says you want to create a charter prop, not a charter.  If this passes, there'll be a charter prop on next nweek's ballot, but no vSOI.

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Von Skippy Overproduction
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 19:20:28 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Baron...You might want to look at the wording of your proposal.  The way I 
see it right now, it says you want to create a charter prop, not a charter.  
If this passes, there'll be a charter prop on next nweek's ballot, but no 
vSOI.

						Glotmorf

-Hmm. Thanks. Any specific way I should rephrase that? "Create a charter," 
or "club charter," or "society," or something like that?-

                                          -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:25:12 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Von Skippy Overproduction
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/18/02 at 7:20 PM Alex Truelsen wrote:

>Baron...You might want to look at the wording of your proposal.  The way
>I 
>see it right now, it says you want to create a charter prop, not a
>charter.  
>If this passes, there'll be a charter prop on next nweek's ballot, but no 
>vSOI.
>
>						Glotmorf
>
>-Hmm. Thanks. Any specific way I should rephrase that? "Create a charter," 
>or "club charter," or "society," or something like that?-
>
>                                          -BvS-
>

How about, "This is a Charter Prop which creates the following charter:"

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Von Skippy Overproduction
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:50:43 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Baron...You might want to look at the wording of your proposal.  The way
 >I
 >see it right now, it says you want to create a charter prop, not a
 >charter.
 >If this passes, there'll be a charter prop on next nweek's ballot, but no
 >vSOI.
 >
 >						Glotmorf
 >
 >-Hmm. Thanks. Any specific way I should rephrase that? "Create a charter,"
 >or "club charter," or "society," or something like that?-
 >
 >                                          -BvS-
 >

How about, "This is a Charter Prop which creates the following charter:"

						Glotmorf

-I'm getting a worrying feeling that my revision to that didn't go out... 
Did it? I cracked it in two yesterday, I think. Or did something go screwy?-

                                            -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: ok dave...
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 21:41:24 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Alex wrote:

> >-So, it's like a stack of instants? *sudden rational thought* Uh, does
>  > anyone here play Magic?-
> 
> Don't make us thump you.  :)
> 
> -*blink blink* I'll take that as a no?-

Yes.

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop: delegation means delegation 
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 00:01:52 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> {{ _Delegation Means Delegation_
> 
> Change Rule 125 to read:
> 
> "Any action which is required to be performed by the Administrator or a>  Minister may also be performed by an automated script or webpage acting on>  the Administrator's or Minister's behalf.
> 
> If the action that such a script or webpage would perform is the acceptance>  of submitted player actions, and said script or webpage was sufficiently>  public as to be accessible to all players, and sufficiently secure as to>  ensure the submitted player's identity, the Administrator may mandate use>  of said script or webpage for that action.  For the purpose of that>  specific action, said script or webpage will be considered a public>  forum." 
> }}

 I'm in two minds about this.  I can see how it would make things
easier, but:

 a) I've not always got easy access to a web-browser.
 b) When I do it's often lynx.
 c) The interface has to be well written :).

 Wild Card.

 

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Roster incompleteness 
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 00:22:17 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Thus spake "Gavin Doig":
> > 
> > On a related note, can you remember how Acka's statute was worded? I seem t
> o 
> > remember it made things legal if they weren't noticed for 2 weeks, but I co
> ul
> > dn't see it in the last version of the rules I could find, and I'm not sure
>  o
> > f the details.
> > 
> > uin.
> 
> Where is Acka archived, BTW? It occurs to me that I don't have a copy of it 
> in the Nomic Museum.
> 
 www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/acka/ has some stuff, as does Duncan
Richer's site (slakko).

 In answer to the other question, try:

 Rule 701/5
  Crime
  Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)

To break the Rules is to commit the Crime of Blatant Disregard.

To perform an action specified by the Rules to be Illegal is the Crime
of Illegal Action. An action specified by the Rules to be
"impermissible" is, by contrast, impossible. Although such an action
does not occur it is not in itself a crime.

If, however, the illegality or impossibility of a publically knowable
change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the
action or inaction which caused that change is considered legal, but
it is still a Crime. The change is deemed to have occurred
retroactively to the time of the attempt. The preceding does not apply
to the case of events which occur automatically, but whose occurrence
is not (or erroneously) reported [e.g., loss of the Great
Trombone]. This paragraph has precedence over rule 103 (Retroactive
Effects).

Failure of an Officer to perform a Duty of an Office e holds is the
Crime of Non-Performance. The act of performing a Duty incorrectly is
the Crime of Malpractice.

* Created by Proposal 1365 on 30 Oct 1996
* Renumbered by Rule 1412 on 13 Nov 1996 by Malenkai (Randy Hall)
* Amended by Proposal 1772 on 10 Mar 1997 by Malenkai (Randy Hall)
* Amended by Proposal 2606 on 25 Jan 1998 by Slakko (Duncan Richer)
* Amended by Proposal 2765 on 16 Mar 1998 by The Gingham Wearer (Tom
  Walmsley)
* Amended by Proposal 3459 on 27 Aug 1998 by Mr. Tambourine Man (Tom
  Walmsley)

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 01:24:52 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop: delegation means
  delegation
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 12:01 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>> {{ _Delegation Means Delegation_
>> 
>> Change Rule 125 to read:
>> 
>> "Any action which is required to be performed by the Administrator or a=
>>  Minister may also be performed by an automated script or webpage acting
>on=
>>  the Administrator's or Minister's behalf.
>> 
>> If the action that such a script or webpage would perform is the
>acceptance=
>>  of submitted player actions, and said script or webpage was
>sufficiently=
>>  public as to be accessible to all players, and sufficiently secure as
>to=
>>  ensure the submitted player's identity, the Administrator may mandate
>use=
>>  of said script or webpage for that action.  For the purpose of that=
>>  specific action, said script or webpage will be considered a public=
>>  forum." 
>> }}
>
> I'm in two minds about this.  I can see how it would make things
>easier, but:
>
> a) I've not always got easy access to a web-browser.
> b) When I do it's often lynx.
> c) The interface has to be well written :).
>
> Wild Card.

Well...whaddaya think of this:

http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/instarule.html

It's a tad crude, but I think it ensures a syntax-legal insta-rule.  Is it lynx-friendly?

BTW...has anyone ever tried a MUD/MUSH with Nomic?  It's telnet-based, and therefore line-oriented, and therefore compatible with any machine that can run telnet at all.  Plus, there are special-purpose clients for such things.  MUSHes, at least, are codable, which means an interface could be built out of them, and it could provide means for chat areas.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 05:56:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop: delegation means 
 delegation
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 20 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/instarule.html
>
> It's a tad crude, but I think it ensures a syntax-legal insta-rule.  Is
> it lynx-friendly?

Not really, no. :-)

I can send a dump of what the page looks like to lynx users, if you like.
(In fact, I'll do so anyway, privately.)

> BTW...has anyone ever tried a MUD/MUSH with Nomic?  It's telnet-based,
> and therefore line-oriented, and therefore compatible with any machine
> that can run telnet at all.  Plus, there are special-purpose clients for
> such things.  MUSHes, at least, are codable, which means an interface
> could be built out of them, and it could provide means for chat areas.

Yib (of LambdaMOO fame) has been working on that for a while on a side
project, YibMOO. yib.moo.mud.org:7777 (I think). I'm not sure how well
things are faring over there - it's been a while since I dropped in,
because I know if I do, I'll end up playing, and I just don't have time
for another Nomic just now.

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop: delegation means delegation 
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 09:37:50 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> On Mon, 20 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:
> 
> > http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/instarule.html
> >
> > It's a tad crude, but I think it ensures a syntax-legal insta-rule.  Is
> > it lynx-friendly?
> 
> Not really, no. :-)
> 
> I can send a dump of what the page looks like to lynx users, if you like.
> (In fact, I'll do so anyway, privately.)

 Its not *too* bad, but when you use the `Make an Insta-Rule' button it
gives the errors:
 
 Alert!: POST not supported for this URL - ignoring POST data!

 Alert!: Unsupported URL scheme!

> > BTW...has anyone ever tried a MUD/MUSH with Nomic?  It's telnet-based,
> > and therefore line-oriented, and therefore compatible with any machine
> > that can run telnet at all.  Plus, there are special-purpose clients for
> > such things.  MUSHes, at least, are codable, which means an interface
> > could be built out of them, and it could provide means for chat areas.

 NomicWorld was a MU*, but pretty much all I know about it I've
learned from the NomicWiki.

 WC.

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 07:12:07 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 RESULTS
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Proposal 678/0 (Remember me, remember me.) (The Reality Police):
> AFF: bd, Naath, The Reality Police, The Voice, Wonko
> NEG: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Rob, Wild Card
> Counts: (5-4-0-0). Measure passes.
> Measure is vetoed by the Administrator (if Bandwidth Rationing is
> repealed, you'll be looking for a new Admin. I like the rest of it, but
> the "repeal rule 212" part simply will not happen).
>
I believe that the above veto, and indeed every other veto, fails. Rule 32 says that a proosal which is vetoed by the admin is considered to have failed. However, the Admin did not veto P678 until he released the voting results. P678 is considered to have passed when "after the votes on all proposals voted on during that voting period have been counted". It's a little ambiguous as to whether that is when they are platonically counted by the rules, or mundanely counted by the Admin, but either way his veto came afterwards, and so cannot change the results (or at least cannot change the changes made to the rules made by the proosal - it might still be "deemed to have failed" afterwards), as that would be a violation of R204.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 09:08:19 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop: delegation means
  delegation
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 9:37 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>> On Mon, 20 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:
>> 
>> > http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/instarule.html
>> >
>> > It's a tad crude, but I think it ensures a syntax-legal insta-rule.  Is
>> > it lynx-friendly?
>> 
>> Not really, no. :-)
>> 
>> I can send a dump of what the page looks like to lynx users, if you like.
>> (In fact, I'll do so anyway, privately.)
>
> Its not *too* bad, but when you use the `Make an Insta-Rule' button it
>gives the errors:
> 
> Alert!: POST not supported for this URL - ignoring POST data!
>
> Alert!: Unsupported URL scheme!
>
>> > BTW...has anyone ever tried a MUD/MUSH with Nomic?  It's telnet-based,
>> > and therefore line-oriented, and therefore compatible with any machine
>> > that can run telnet at all.  Plus, there are special-purpose clients
>for
>> > such things.  MUSHes, at least, are codable, which means an interface
>> > could be built out of them, and it could provide means for chat areas.
>
> NomicWorld was a MU*, but pretty much all I know about it I've
>learned from the NomicWiki.
>
> WC.

Okay, the errors from the "Make an Insta-Rule" button are at least partly because the script the form's action points to doesn't exist yet.  But in IE and Netscape there's a popup from Javascript that shows the insta-rule  you made.  What does Lynx do with Javascript and popup messages?

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 09:17:29 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 RESULTS
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 7:12 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> Proposal 678/0 (Remember me, remember me.) (The Reality Police):
>> AFF: bd, Naath, The Reality Police, The Voice, Wonko
>> NEG: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Rob, Wild Card
>> Counts: (5-4-0-0). Measure passes.
>> Measure is vetoed by the Administrator (if Bandwidth Rationing is
>> repealed, you'll be looking for a new Admin. I like the rest of it, but
>> the "repeal rule 212" part simply will not happen).
>>
>I believe that the above veto, and indeed every other veto, fails. Rule 32
>says that a proosal which is vetoed by the admin is considered to have
>failed. However, the Admin did not veto P678 until he released the voting
>results. P678 is considered to have passed when "after the votes on all
>proposals voted on during that voting period have been counted". It's a
>little ambiguous as to whether that is when they are platonically counted
>by the rules, or mundanely counted by the Admin, but either way his veto
>came afterwards, and so cannot change the results (or at least cannot
>change the changes made to the rules made by the proosal - it might still
>be "deemed to have failed" afterwards), as that would be a violation of
>R204.
>
>uin.

R33: "Whenever one section of a rule conflicts with another section of the same rule, the section which appears later in the rule takes precedence over the earlier section."

The two rule sections, "after the votes on all proposals voted on..." and the veto stuff, are both in r32.  The veto stuff comes after the other one.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 11:06:49 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop: delegation means
  delegation
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 9:08 AM Glotmorf wrote:

>On 5/20/02 at 9:37 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 20 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:
>>> 
>>> > http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/instarule.html
>>> >
>>> > It's a tad crude, but I think it ensures a syntax-legal insta-rule. 
>Is
>>> > it lynx-friendly?
>>> 
>>> Not really, no. :-)
>>> 
>>> I can send a dump of what the page looks like to lynx users, if you
>like.
>>> (In fact, I'll do so anyway, privately.)
>>
>> Its not *too* bad, but when you use the `Make an Insta-Rule' button it
>>gives the errors:
>> 
>> Alert!: POST not supported for this URL - ignoring POST data!
>>
>> Alert!: Unsupported URL scheme!
>>
>>> > BTW...has anyone ever tried a MUD/MUSH with Nomic?  It's telnet-based,
>>> > and therefore line-oriented, and therefore compatible with any machine
>>> > that can run telnet at all.  Plus, there are special-purpose clients
>>for
>>> > such things.  MUSHes, at least, are codable, which means an interface
>>> > could be built out of them, and it could provide means for chat areas.
>>
>> NomicWorld was a MU*, but pretty much all I know about it I've
>>learned from the NomicWiki.
>>
>> WC.
>
>Okay, the errors from the "Make an Insta-Rule" button are at least partly
>because the script the form's action points to doesn't exist yet.  But in
>IE and Netscape there's a popup from Javascript that shows the insta-rule 
>you made.  What does Lynx do with Javascript and popup messages?
>
>						Glotmorf

Well, Lynx is uglier than I thought...but that could also mean the Win95 telnet client I have sucks majorly.  But I guess if the form isn't easily navigable in Lynx, and Lynx is all you've got, then it's not "sufficiently public".

Pfui.  Proposal revision on the way.

						Glotmorf

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 10:38:57 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 RESULTS
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> R33: "Whenever one section of a rule conflicts with
> another section of the same rule, the section which
> appears later in the rule takes precedence over the
> earlier section."
>
> The two rule sections, "after the votes on all proposals
> voted on..." and the veto stuff, are both in r32.  The
> veto stuff comes after the other one.
>
Yes. So what?

When the votes are counted, the first part fires. At that point, there is no veto, so the proosal passes, and it's changes are applied. When the Admin vetoes it, that does indeed take precedence over the passage, so it is deemed to have failed. But the changes have already been committed, and r204 says you can't roll them back. If the Admin had tried to veto it before the counting (say, if when he sent that message to spoon-discuss he'd sent it (or at least the veto part) to spoon-business), it would have worked fine.

uin.

-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop 709 revision 
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:54:10 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > [[ "Collection of same" meaning if someone wants to go to the trouble of>  writing a web-friendly interface AND a lynx-friendly interface AND a>  line-oriented interface, etc., it would all collectively be considered a>  single "software system".  Personally I can see this being a desirable>  thing, given enough actions to process. ]]

 breadbox had a voting machinery for acka where you could either use
email (to the bot) or a web-browser, which worked quite well - I used
both at times.

 WC.

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:38:02 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 RESULTS
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> Proposal 661/1 (One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor)
> (Baron von Skippy):
> Counts: (8-1-0-0). Measure passes.
> The first action requested cannot be completed, as Rule 498 doesn't have a
> sixth paragraph.

So what happens when a rule fails? The rule says that the actions listed
happen. Period. But they can't. Also period. Now what?

> Proposal 676/1 (Let's get some points!) (Wonko):
> Counts: (6-3-0-0). Measure passes.
> (This wasn't a Charter Prop, since it never said it was in the non-comment
> text of the document. It still passed, though.)

Sure it was a Charter Prop. It never says anywhere that Charter Props must
declare that they are Charter Props; it only says that the author must call
them such when e proposes them. I did.

> Proposal 684/1 (Bonus Boxes) (Wonko):
> Counts: (7-0-1-1). Measure passes.
> All Shiny Things and Scary Dark Things cease to exist, since there is no
> longer a rule defining them, and no part of the proposal changed them into
> Bonus Boxes.
> Cannot revise Rule 349: requested text isn't there, so I can't delete it.

Oops. That was supposed to be 394. Damn. And I meant to include a bit that
would put some new Boxes on. Damn again.

> Proposal 685/2 (Would You Like Fries with That?) (M-Tek):
> Counts: (8-2-0-0). Measure passes.
> 
> Proposal 686/0 (Termination Procedures) (M-Tek):
> Counts: (8-2-0-0). Measure passes.

Neither of these happened. There is no M-Tek; it therefore cannot make Club
Props.

-- 
Wonko

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (end of nweek stuff)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:57:58 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 17 May 2002 21:20, you wrote:
> This week's Colour Commentator is bd.

What does that mean?

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:14:39 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Dead Fish
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/15/02 at 5:39 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> I think that Babel Fish is not working properly. I put the following into
>> it
>> (minus the {}'s):
>> 
>> {This is a test. I have recently observed strange behavior coming from this
>> device, so I will now endeavor to ascertain this website's validity. Here
>> goes nothing!}
>> 
>> And got this out of it (again, minus the {}'s):
>> 
>> {website's?}
>> 
>> In light of its failure, I have concluded that whatever last bit of fun we
>> could squeeze out of it is probably gone. I change my vote on prop. 677 to
>> No. I'm rooting for the full repeal.
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> This is examination. Me the all observed the conduct which is strange recently
> from system, am like that I will endeavor the fact that now ascertains a
> website's propriety. From here anything is not the branch,!
> 
> *    *    *    *    *
> 
> That's what I got.  Did you delimit it or something?
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 

Okay, I just ran some tests. Here's what happened (note: all texts below
were put in and recieved without the {} delimeters enclosing them):

This was fed into both Netscape and Explorer, and run from English to
Korean:
{
This is a test of the emergency sushi system. I will now attempt to
determine whether the word scrambling system we employ is out of order, in
working order, or incompatible with certain browsers only. Here we go!
}

Explorer returned:
{
??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??. ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???, ? ???? ,??
??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ? ??. ??? ??? ?? !
}

Nescape returned:
{
??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??. ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???, ? ???? ,??
??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ? ??. ??? ??? ?? !
}

Each string was then fed into its respective creator and run from Korean to
English.

Explorer returned:
{
}

Netscape returned:
{
This is examination of the state of emergency sushi system. Now right Riga
at the outside of the order which the word system which it employs mixes up,
inside one ordering, or it is equally divided only I to the browser which is
positive and will attempt the fact that. From here we go,!
}

This would suggest that Internet Explorer is incompatible with AltaVista.

I also tried plugging Explorer's korean into Netscape, and Netscape's Korean
into Explorer, and neither returned anything.

So the only way Babelfish seems to work is if it's used entirely in
Netscape.

Conclusion: Microsoft sucks.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:18:17 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: von Skippy Overproduction,
	Inc.
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Wow... Remind me never to miss four days of Nomic in a row again...

Okay, I'm going to start responding to things. I apologize if I say anything
someone's already said; I'm a bit out of it at the moment.

Quoth Glotmorf,

> It's my belief -- hence the argument with Wonko -- that the current version of
> the charter prop rule doesn't grant a charter prop the authority to make a
> charter that does anything but say how members can join, how members can be
> ousted, who the first member is, and whether and how the club can make a club
> prop.  So stuff that controls the creation of gnomes and the assigning of them
> to people is outside the authority of the charter prop.

Then defining what the president of M-Tek is and what e can do is also
outside the the Charter Prop's authority. M-Tek is illegal once again.

> There's a reason for this.

I eagerly await enlightenment

> My idea for charter props was a quickie way of creating clubs, one that didn't
> require the approval of a lot of players but nevertheless could be overturned
> if everyone decided to do so.  This should be acceptable for any club that
> doesn't have a significant impact on the rest of the game, but only exists for
> the sake of its members.  Things that create and distribute points, or create
> and distribute grid objects, etc. are things everyone should be willing to
> approve; otherwise, as Wonko's example indicated, it would be blatantly
> unfair.
> 
> Now...this isn't to say that a club can't be formed whose members get gnomes
> as door prizes.  It's just that it'd have to be created using a regular
> proposal, which would require at least 1/2 of the votes to be affirmative.

But without allowing Charter Props to make clubs that can change the
gamestate significantly, there's really only one club that can be made via a
Charter Prop - a generic club that lets people pool bandwidth. Even
something as simple as calling a member the Prez would be outside the
authority of the Charter Prop.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:23:30 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: missing players, votes, etc...
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Ed Murphy,

> dave wrote:
> 
>> I filter out Nomic-related mail based on the domain name "nomic.net"
>> whereas Ed, and "bd", both appear to be using "ellipsis.cx". If possible,
>> please use the former name when sending anything important (i.e.
>> [email-masked]), as otherwise the email lands in my "stuff
>> that's not that important so you can take a few days to look at it"
>> folder.
> 
> Already have done.
> 
> ("Drop dead, Rimmer."
> "Already have done."
> "Encore.")
> 

Another Red Dwarf fan? Wow.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:23:23 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 RESULTS
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 10:38 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> R33: "Whenever one section of a rule conflicts with
>> another section of the same rule, the section which
>> appears later in the rule takes precedence over the
>> earlier section."
>>
>> The two rule sections, "after the votes on all proposals
>> voted on..." and the veto stuff, are both in r32.  The
>> veto stuff comes after the other one.
>>
>Yes. So what?
>
>When the votes are counted, the first part fires. At that point, there is
>no veto, so the proosal passes, and it's changes are applied. When the
>Admin vetoes it, that does indeed take precedence over the passage, so it
>is deemed to have failed. But the changes have already been committed, and
>r204 says you can't roll them back. If the Admin had tried to veto it
>before the counting (say, if when he sent that message to spoon-discuss
>he'd sent it (or at least the veto part) to spoon-business), it would have
>worked fine.
>
>uin.

R204 comes after r32, so r32 takes precedence.  That means, even if r204 says something can't happen, if r32 says it does happen, it happens.

						Glotmorf

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Dead Fish
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:18:53 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Monday 20 May 2002 16:14, you wrote:
> Conclusion: Microsoft sucks.

Really? You think?

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:28:58 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> A Charter Prop creates a Club, yes, but it also "must contain a charter that
> defines the Club."  Which means the nature of the Club being created is
> defined in the Charter Prop.  The Club, once it exists, has as its properties
> the nature listed in the Charter Prop.  So the Charter is another change to
> the gamestate that the Charter Prop makes, or part of the same one, depending
> on your point of view.

It must contain a Club-Defining charter; however, nowhere does it say that
that Charter is ever used for anything. The best interpretation I can come
up for that is that, while the Club is free to have that Charter, it's not
part of the ruleset. So you've created a Charter for a club called M-Tek,
but it's not a rule. Meanwhile, you never actually called for the existence
of the Club, you just wrote its Charter. So yet again, there is no M-Tek.

> Addressing your other message...With the exception of things like the Upper
> House, Clubs exist primarily for the purposes of their members; if
> participation in a Club resulted in no change to the gamestate, the members of
> a Club would not need the permission of the Players for the Club to exist.
> However, since Clubs can submit Club Props, which both exploit and affect its
> members' attributes, I figured the main body of Players should have a chance
> to deny a Club's existence if it was truly necessary to do so.  In most cases
> it should never be necessary, because, while the results of Club Props affect
> players, the effects are still confined to the Club members on a relatively
> zero-sum basis.

So you're saying that you don't want there to be many clubs except generic
"a bunch of pooled bandwidth" ones?

> Would people have voted for the Charter Prop rule if Clubs could be created
> with no vote required?

No. And they shouldn't have voted for it if Clubs could be created with only
a 1/3 majority vote required.

Alright, could you explain to me exactly what you want Clubs to be? Your
interpretation implies that Clubs should, in general, be nothing more than
the generic 'group of people who can make proposals' sort of thing. I'd
think there would be much more potential for being interesting in something
that could actually *matter* than something that simply sits there and does
nothing. I'm imagining little subgames and such, like the Fantasy Rules
commitee of Nomic World. That sort of thing. What do you want out of Clubs?

-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:28:18 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Dead Fish
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 4:14 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/15/02 at 5:39 PM Wonko wrote:
>> 
>>> I think that Babel Fish is not working properly. I put the following
>into
>>> it
>>> (minus the {}'s):
>>> 
>>> {This is a test. I have recently observed strange behavior coming from
>this
>>> device, so I will now endeavor to ascertain this website's validity.
>Here
>>> goes nothing!}
>>> 
>>> And got this out of it (again, minus the {}'s):
>>> 
>>> {website's?}
>>> 
>>> In light of its failure, I have concluded that whatever last bit of fun
>we
>>> could squeeze out of it is probably gone. I change my vote on prop. 677
>to
>>> No. I'm rooting for the full repeal.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Wonko
>> 
>> This is examination. Me the all observed the conduct which is strange
>recently
>> from system, am like that I will endeavor the fact that now ascertains a
>> website's propriety. From here anything is not the branch,!
>> 
>> *    *    *    *    *
>> 
>> That's what I got.  Did you delimit it or something?
>> 
>> Glotmorf
>> 
>> 
>
>Okay, I just ran some tests. Here's what happened (note: all texts below
>were put in and recieved without the {} delimeters enclosing them):
>
>This was fed into both Netscape and Explorer, and run from English to
>Korean:
>{
>This is a test of the emergency sushi system. I will now attempt to
>determine whether the word scrambling system we employ is out of order, in
>working order, or incompatible with certain browsers only. Here we go!
>}
>
>Explorer returned:
>{
>??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??. ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???, ? ???? ,??
>??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ? ??. ??? ??? ?? !
>}
>
>Nescape returned:
>{
>??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??. ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???, ? ???? ,??
>??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ? ??. ??? ??? ?? !
>}
>
>Each string was then fed into its respective creator and run from Korean to
>English.
>
>Explorer returned:
>{
>}
>
>Netscape returned:
>{
>This is examination of the state of emergency sushi system. Now right Riga
>at the outside of the order which the word system which it employs mixes
>up,
>inside one ordering, or it is equally divided only I to the browser which
>is
>positive and will attempt the fact that. From here we go,!
>}
>
>This would suggest that Internet Explorer is incompatible with AltaVista.
>
>I also tried plugging Explorer's korean into Netscape, and Netscape's
>Korean
>into Explorer, and neither returned anything.
>
>So the only way Babelfish seems to work is if it's used entirely in
>Netscape.
>
>Conclusion: Microsoft sucks.
>-- 
>Wonko

I fully agree with the conclusion, but I didn't have a problem with IE. :)  Mind you, for reasons of my own, I have a couple extra character sets installed with my browser.  Maybe that makes a difference?

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:35:26 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: la
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> "New players may join by announcing eir intention to do so on a Public Forum;
> Any member of the Holy Order of Points may be kicked out by any other member
> of the Holy Order of Points. [[This is irrelevant anyway]]"
> 
> ...but this is an interesting point, since it does say "new players".  Does
> that mean the Holy Order of Points sticks around until half as many people as
> we have players now join the game and then join the club?

'New' is a relative term. If a player is 'new' to the HOOP, that is, was, at
least recently, not a member, then e may join. So we've got 3 so far. Except
not really, b/c r155 didn't do anything to stop all you happy little voters
from joining and getting rich.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:35:33 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: von Skippy
  Overproduction, Inc.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 4:18 PM Wonko wrote:

>Wow... Remind me never to miss four days of Nomic in a row again...
>
>Okay, I'm going to start responding to things. I apologize if I say
>anything
>someone's already said; I'm a bit out of it at the moment.
>
>
>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> It's my belief -- hence the argument with Wonko -- that the current
>version of
>> the charter prop rule doesn't grant a charter prop the authority to make
>a
>> charter that does anything but say how members can join, how members can
>be
>> ousted, who the first member is, and whether and how the club can make a
>club
>> prop.  So stuff that controls the creation of gnomes and the assigning
>of them
>> to people is outside the authority of the charter prop.
>
>Then defining what the president of M-Tek is and what e can do is also
>outside the the Charter Prop's authority. M-Tek is illegal once again.
>
>> There's a reason for this.
>
>I eagerly await enlightenment
>
>> My idea for charter props was a quickie way of creating clubs, one that
>didn't
>> require the approval of a lot of players but nevertheless could be
>overturned
>> if everyone decided to do so.  This should be acceptable for any club
>that
>> doesn't have a significant impact on the rest of the game, but only
>exists for
>> the sake of its members.  Things that create and distribute points, or
>create
>> and distribute grid objects, etc. are things everyone should be willing
>to
>> approve; otherwise, as Wonko's example indicated, it would be blatantly
>> unfair.
>> 
>> Now...this isn't to say that a club can't be formed whose members get
>gnomes
>> as door prizes.  It's just that it'd have to be created using a regular
>> proposal, which would require at least 1/2 of the votes to be
>affirmative.
>
>But without allowing Charter Props to make clubs that can change the
>gamestate significantly, there's really only one club that can be made via
>a
>Charter Prop - a generic club that lets people pool bandwidth. Even
>something as simple as calling a member the Prez would be outside the
>authority of the Charter Prop.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Nope.  The Charter Prop rule says members of a club have to obey the rules in the charter, so the rules in the charter are part of the club's nature.  That affects the members of the club, but it doesn't affect the entire game.  The charter is a body of extra rules that members of a club agree to obey if they accept membership in the club, unlike players overall who aren't affected if they don't want to be.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:41:10 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: la
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 4:35 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> "New players may join by announcing eir intention to do so on a Public
>Forum;
>> Any member of the Holy Order of Points may be kicked out by any other
>member
>> of the Holy Order of Points. [[This is irrelevant anyway]]"
>> 
>> ...but this is an interesting point, since it does say "new players". 
>Does
>> that mean the Holy Order of Points sticks around until half as many
>people as
>> we have players now join the game and then join the club?
>
>'New' is a relative term. If a player is 'new' to the HOOP, that is, was,
>at
>least recently, not a member, then e may join. So we've got 3 so far.
>Except
>not really, b/c r155 didn't do anything to stop all you happy little voters
>from joining and getting rich.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

"New" may be a relative term, but "new players" is pretty specific.  I assume you meant to say "new members"?

Good to have you back, guy.  My mailbox was looking empty. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:43:03 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Naath Thabana?= <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Dead Fish
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Conclusion: Microsoft sucks.
hands up who *didn't* know that.

Naath

==Like duct tape the force is, a light side and a dark side it has, holds the universe together it does, hmm.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:45:19 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday night)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 4:31 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Rob Speer,
>
>> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 05:56:36AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
>>> Glotmorf's Holy Order of Points CFI is 708, assigned (randomly -- I'll
>>> only handpick the judges if it's really important IMO) to Rob.
>> 
>> That's convenient. I judge TRUE.
>
>I appeal CFI 708, citing CFJ 254 as precedent. [[That was the one where
>Bean
>ruled that the effects of rules created by proposals did not count as
>effects of the proposals themselves.]]
>
>BTW, r127 still has an occurrence of the word 'randomly' in it, which ought
>to have been removed by the admin's previous proposal.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Rule 155, which CFJ 254 addresses, was modified by Proposal 265, which came after the CFJ.  Therefore, Rule 155 is more current than CFJ 254, so CFJ 254 isn't a valid precedent to address r155's current validity.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:51:27 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
	(Friday night)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/20/02 at 4:31 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Rob Speer,
>> 
>>> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 05:56:36AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
>>>> Glotmorf's Holy Order of Points CFI is 708, assigned (randomly -- I'll
>>>> only handpick the judges if it's really important IMO) to Rob.
>>> 
>>> That's convenient. I judge TRUE.
>> 
>> I appeal CFI 708, citing CFJ 254 as precedent. [[That was the one where
>> Bean
>> ruled that the effects of rules created by proposals did not count as
>> effects of the proposals themselves.]]
>> 
>> BTW, r127 still has an occurrence of the word 'randomly' in it, which ought
>> to have been removed by the admin's previous proposal.
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> Rule 155, which CFJ 254 addresses, was modified by Proposal 265, which came
> after the CFJ.  Therefore, Rule 155 is more current than CFJ 254, so CFJ 254
> isn't a valid precedent to address r155's current validity.

Sure it is. R155 still forbids proposals to have effects that descrinate
based on voting. The HOOP prop creates a rule. The rule is not an effect of
the proposal. Therefore, the same logic still applies and the HOOP is legal.
And I'm richer.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:54:55 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 4:28 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> A Charter Prop creates a Club, yes, but it also "must contain a charter
>that
>> defines the Club."  Which means the nature of the Club being created is
>> defined in the Charter Prop.  The Club, once it exists, has as its
>properties
>> the nature listed in the Charter Prop.  So the Charter is another change
>to
>> the gamestate that the Charter Prop makes, or part of the same one,
>depending
>> on your point of view.
>
>It must contain a Club-Defining charter; however, nowhere does it say that
>that Charter is ever used for anything. The best interpretation I can come
>up for that is that, while the Club is free to have that Charter, it's not
>part of the ruleset. So you've created a Charter for a club called M-Tek,
>but it's not a rule. Meanwhile, you never actually called for the existence
>of the Club, you just wrote its Charter. So yet again, there is no M-Tek.

It says at the bottom of the Charter Prop rule that the members of the Club must obey the rules in the Charter.  Isn't that using the Charter?

>> Addressing your other message...With the exception of things like the
>Upper
>> House, Clubs exist primarily for the purposes of their members; if
>> participation in a Club resulted in no change to the gamestate, the
>members of
>> a Club would not need the permission of the Players for the Club to
>exist.
>> However, since Clubs can submit Club Props, which both exploit and
>affect its
>> members' attributes, I figured the main body of Players should have a
>chance
>> to deny a Club's existence if it was truly necessary to do so.  In most
>cases
>> it should never be necessary, because, while the results of Club Props
>affect
>> players, the effects are still confined to the Club members on a
>relatively
>> zero-sum basis.
>
>So you're saying that you don't want there to be many clubs except generic
>"a bunch of pooled bandwidth" ones?
>
>> Would people have voted for the Charter Prop rule if Clubs could be
>created
>> with no vote required?
>
>No. And they shouldn't have voted for it if Clubs could be created with
>only
>a 1/3 majority vote required.
>
>
>Alright, could you explain to me exactly what you want Clubs to be? Your
>interpretation implies that Clubs should, in general, be nothing more than
>the generic 'group of people who can make proposals' sort of thing. I'd
>think there would be much more potential for being interesting in something
>that could actually *matter* than something that simply sits there and does
>nothing. I'm imagining little subgames and such, like the Fantasy Rules
>commitee of Nomic World. That sort of thing. What do you want out of Clubs?
>
>-- 
>Wonko

What I want Clubs to be isn't germaine here.  You can come up with any Club you want, with whatever rules you want, in a proposal, and as long as the proposal gets a majority vote you've got yerself a Club.

My arguments have to do with Charter Props, which are only a single way of forming a Club.  They are specifically meant to create, as you put it, pooled bandwidth clubs.  I wanted to create a pooled bandwidth club.  I did.  I'm happy.

And now you've made your own Club.  It wasn't with a Charter Prop, but that's okay, since you got a majority vote.  Be happy. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:57:45 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
  (Friday night)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 4:51 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/20/02 at 4:31 PM Wonko wrote:
>> 
>>> Quoth Rob Speer,
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 05:56:36AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
>>>>> Glotmorf's Holy Order of Points CFI is 708, assigned (randomly -- I'll
>>>>> only handpick the judges if it's really important IMO) to Rob.
>>>> 
>>>> That's convenient. I judge TRUE.
>>> 
>>> I appeal CFI 708, citing CFJ 254 as precedent. [[That was the one where
>>> Bean
>>> ruled that the effects of rules created by proposals did not count as
>>> effects of the proposals themselves.]]
>>> 
>>> BTW, r127 still has an occurrence of the word 'randomly' in it, which
>ought
>>> to have been removed by the admin's previous proposal.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Wonko
>> 
>> Rule 155, which CFJ 254 addresses, was modified by Proposal 265, which
>came
>> after the CFJ.  Therefore, Rule 155 is more current than CFJ 254, so CFJ
>254
>> isn't a valid precedent to address r155's current validity.
>
>Sure it is. R155 still forbids proposals to have effects that descrinate
>based on voting. The HOOP prop creates a rule. The rule is not an effect of
>the proposal. Therefore, the same logic still applies and the HOOP is
>legal.
>And I'm richer.
>-- 
>Wonko

R155 also says:

"If a proposal, by adding, changing, or repealing rules, will generate effects which are based on the way players vote on that proposal, or any other specific proposal or proposals identified in the proposal, then those rules generate no effects based on the way players vote on that particular proposal."

It says this in R155/1.  The CFJ was on R155/0, which didn't say this.  CFJ 254 doesn't apply to R155/1, then, because R155/1 is a significantly different rule.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:14:24 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
	(Friday night)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/20/02 at 4:51 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>> 
>>> On 5/20/02 at 4:31 PM Wonko wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Quoth Rob Speer,
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 05:56:36AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Glotmorf's Holy Order of Points CFI is 708, assigned (randomly -- I'll
>>>>>> only handpick the judges if it's really important IMO) to Rob.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's convenient. I judge TRUE.
>>>> 
>>>> I appeal CFI 708, citing CFJ 254 as precedent. [[That was the one where
>>>> Bean
>>>> ruled that the effects of rules created by proposals did not count as
>>>> effects of the proposals themselves.]]
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, r127 still has an occurrence of the word 'randomly' in it, which
>> ought
>>>> to have been removed by the admin's previous proposal.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Wonko
>>> 
>>> Rule 155, which CFJ 254 addresses, was modified by Proposal 265, which
>> came
>>> after the CFJ.  Therefore, Rule 155 is more current than CFJ 254, so CFJ
>> 254
>>> isn't a valid precedent to address r155's current validity.
>> 
>> Sure it is. R155 still forbids proposals to have effects that descrinate
>> based on voting. The HOOP prop creates a rule. The rule is not an effect of
>> the proposal. Therefore, the same logic still applies and the HOOP is
>> legal.
>> And I'm richer.
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> R155 also says:
> 
> "If a proposal, by adding, changing, or repealing rules, will generate effects
> which are based on the way players vote on that proposal, or any other
> specific proposal or proposals identified in the proposal, then those rules
> generate no effects based on the way players vote on that particular
> proposal."
> 
> It says this in R155/1.  The CFJ was on R155/0, which didn't say this.  CFJ
> 254 doesn't apply to R155/1, then, because R155/1 is a significantly different
> rule.

Nonetheless, the same logic applies. The proposal does not generate effects
based on how players voted. The rule may, but the rules are not the
proposal.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:55:25 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday night)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 05:14:24PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
> > R155 also says:
> > 
> > "If a proposal, by adding, changing, or repealing rules, will generate effects
> > which are based on the way players vote on that proposal, or any other
> > specific proposal or proposals identified in the proposal, then those rules
> > generate no effects based on the way players vote on that particular
> > proposal."
> > 
> > It says this in R155/1.  The CFJ was on R155/0, which didn't say this.  CFJ
> > 254 doesn't apply to R155/1, then, because R155/1 is a significantly different
> > rule.
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, the same logic applies. The proposal does not generate effects
> based on how players voted. The rule may, but the rules are not the
> proposal.

What part of "by adding, changing, or repealing rules" don't you
understand? Is it the word "by"?

In this case, the preposition "by" means "using the method of", and the
rules are the method of generating these effects, so the rule applies.

-- 
Rob Speer

From: Bryan Donlan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Whee!
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:04:04 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Monday 20 May 2002 18:06, you wrote:
> I make the Insta-Rule:
>
> {{ It is illegal to remain in grid location (10, 8). }}
>
> [[This should be fun.]]

But what happens if it's broken?

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:29:39 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> My arguments have to do with Charter Props, which are only a single way of
> forming a Club.  They are specifically meant to create, as you put it, pooled
> bandwidth clubs.  I wanted to create a pooled bandwidth club.  I did.  I'm
> happy.

Under the current rule, players can't create Clubs such as M-Tek with
Charter Props, as the M-Tek Charter does something in addition to what's
allowed by the Club Rule. Charter Props are too limited to be useful, even
ignoring the ambiguous wording scattered throughout.

-- 
Wonko

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: von Skippy Overproduction, Inc. 
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:24:47 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Wow... Remind me never to miss four days of Nomic in a row again...

 Yeah...
 
> But without allowing Charter Props to make clubs that can change the
> gamestate significantly, there's really only one club that can be made via a
> Charter Prop - a generic club that lets people pool bandwidth. Even
> something as simple as calling a member the Prez would be outside the
> authority of the Charter Prop.
> 
 The internal state of a Society is intended to be opaque except as
allowed by the society, and not really part of the GameState at all.

 WC.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday night) 
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:39:00 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Rule 155, which CFJ 254 addresses, was modified by Proposal 265, which came>  after the CFJ.  Therefore, Rule 155 is more current than CFJ 254, so CFJ>  254 isn't a valid precedent to address r155's current validity.
> 
 I reply mearly to stop this becomming Game Custom :)

 Since R155 has been changed C254 is not as valid a precedent (in this
case I think it's arguments have been addressed).  No precedent is
final - later Judges can always find new arguments or reasonings.

 WC.

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 RESULTS
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:23:50 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Proposal 661/1 (One tequila, two tequila, three keteela, floor)
 > (Baron von Skippy):
 > Counts: (8-1-0-0). Measure passes.
 > The first action requested cannot be completed, as Rule 498 doesn't have 
a
 > sixth paragraph.

So what happens when a rule fails? The rule says that the actions listed
happen. Period. But they can't. Also period. Now what?

-Easy. The sixth paragraph WAS altered/repealed/whatever (Dave? What did I 
ask you to do? Do you know?), because there are an infinite number of 
paragraphs in any rule, but most don't say anything, and I figure out if 
whatever I was trying to do was important to try to do it again.-

                                              -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Dead Fish
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:35:08 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Conclusion: Microsoft sucks.

-Now, hold on, buddyboy. I plugged your text into BabelFish (I use IE) and 
back, and I got:

This is examination of the state of emergency sushi system. Now right Riga 
at the outside of the order which the word system which it employs mixes up, 
inside one ordering, or it is equally divided only I to the browser which is 
positive and will attempt the fact that. From here we go,!

, which indicates to me that something is wrong with your computer, not IE 
or BabelFish. What version of IE do you use, and what kind of computer. Oh, 
and granted, Microsoft sucks, as does AOL-Netscape-Time Warner-Yap!.com (for 
you Doonsbury fans out there), and Macintosh, and all of them! They all 
suck! Gah. Sorry, I'll be quiet now.-

                                          -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 23:10:34 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be legal?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 6:41 PM Wonko wrote:

>I make a Charter Prop:
>{{
>__Jumping through HOOPs__
>
>This is a Charter Prop.
>
>Create:
>
>{{
>__HOOP mk. 2__
>
>There exists a Society called the Lovely Order of Points, or the LOOP.
>
>Players may join the LOOP if they have never been a member by declaring
>that
>they do so in a Public Forum.
>
>Any player may oust a member of the LOOP by taking 20 points from the
>Gremlin Fund and giving them to the player being ousted.
>
>Wonko is the first member of the LOOP.
>}}
>
>}}
>
>-- 
>Wonko

It's valid as a Charter Prop.  But the act of taking 20 points from the Gremlin Fund isn't permitted anywhere in the rules, so members of the LOOP can't be ousted at this time...

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 03:50:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Monday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 20 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> On 5/21/02 at 2:03 AM David E. Smith wrote:
>
> >Rob has judged (TRUE) CFI 708. Thus, Wonko is the only member of the HoP.
>
> Since the repealing of Rules 702 and 703 was also an event resulting from all those people becoming members, those rules should be restored too.

While technically true, as soon as someone else joins the HOP, the whole
sequence of events will occur again, and I'll just have to re-repeal 'em.
It amounts to my spending about five minutes on absolutely nothing. :)

...dave

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:10:14 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A bit of Neatness
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 5:53 PM Wonko wrote:

>We've got too many Gnome Rules. So,
>
>{{
>__Neatening up Gnomes__

"Less is More" is becoming a movement.  Cool.  Maybe it'll take me less than ten minutes to find things in the rules now...:)

A few changes, though, that perhaps you can make while you've got the unit unassembled...?

>A.3. Gnome Throwing
>
>Gnomes can be in a grid location or in the posession of a Player.
>
>If a Player and a Gnome are in the same grid location the Player may pick
>up
>the Gnome. 
>A Player who has a Gnome may throw it at another grid location or at a
>Player in another grid location. Gremlins cannot be thrown at Players who
>are On Leave. 
>If a Gnome is thrown at a Player, the Player must, as an action, catch the
>Gnome within two ndays of it being thrown. If the Player does not or cannot
>catch the Gnome, the Gnome hits the Player, who then loses 1d4 score points
>to the Player that threw the Gnome; the Gnome then loses 1 hit Point and
>falls where the Player is standing.

Change "Gremlins" to "Gnomes".

>A.5. Gnome Bags
>
>Each player has a Gnome Bag. Any player who has a Gnome may place it in eir
>Gnome bag. Any player with a Gnome in eir Gnome Bags may take it out at any
>time. Gnomes in Gnome bags are treated as if they were Basic Gnomes until
>they are removed.

"with a Gnome in eir Gnome Bags" to "with a Gnome in eir Gnome Bag"

"Gnome bags" to "Gnome Bags"

>A.5. Mixing Gnomes
>
>If a player has more than one Gnome that is possessed by em, e may mix eir
>Gnomes together, which destroys both Gnomes and creates a new one. Gnomes
>may only be mixed as explicitly permitted by the rules.

Change "both Gnomes" to "the Gnomes thus mixed".  Under subsection C, it's possible to mix three Basic Gnomes.

>A.7. Garbage Cans
>
>There exist objects called Garbage Cans. Garbage Cans are passable,
>stationary objects. There is a Garbage Can at each Elbonian Airways
>location
>Any player who holds a Gnome and is in a square consecutive to a square
>that
>conatains a Garbage Can may Throw Out a Gnome in eir possession, destroying
>the Gnome and gaining 5 points.

Add a "." after "location".

>B.3. Fire Gnomes
>
>There exist Gnomes of type Fire. If a square is occupied by either an Fire
>Gnome or an entity which holds a Fire Gnome, then the square and all
>entities in that square lose the attributes Frozen and Wet, and any Brooks
>in that square are destroyed.

"an Fire Gnome" to "a Fire Gnome".  Les'n of course that's a silent F.

>B.6. Earth Gnomes
>
>There exist Gnomes of type Earth. Earth Gnomes have 3 hit points. An Earth
>Gnome may be squeezed by the player holding it at the cost of one of its
>hit
>points to turn the Brook the squeezing player is standing in into Mud.

How about adding, "If the squeezing player is not standing in a Brook, the Gnome still loses a hit point, but there is no other effect."  Or make the squeezing conditional on a Brook.

>B.10. Beer Gnomes
>
>There exist gnomes of type Beer. Beer Gnomes have three hit points. Beer
>Gnomes may be squeezed by the player holding them at the cost of one of
>their hit points to produce a Can of Beer, the drinking of which
>immediately
>destroys the Can. When a Beer Gnome runs out of hit points, it becomes a
>Beer Can. This rule takes precedence over rules 441 and 498.

Take out the last sentence.  This paragraph will be in r441, and r441 is before r498.

>B.12. Sheep Gnomes
>
>There exist Gnomes call Sheep Gnomes.
>There exist objects called Shears. Any player who does not have Shears may
>pay 5 points to get them. Any player who possessess both Shears and a Sheep
>Gnome may Shear the Sheep, in which case e gets a Cotton Sponge and eir
>Sheep Gnome turns into a randomly selected other type of Gnome.

Either leave the Shears where they are, in r549, or add r549 to the rules to be repealed.  I'd suggest leaving the Shears where they are for now.  They might fit better under a consolidated Objects rule.

As for reining in the Rain of Sheep, how about:

"At the beginning of a nweek, if no Sheep Gnomes exist, 2 Sheep Gnomes shall drop upon random squares on the grid. If a Sheep Gnome lands on a square occupied by an impassable object, then the Sheep is destroyed and the square it landed on, each square consective to that square, and all objects and entities in those squares gain the attribute Wet. If a Sheep Gnome lands on a player, that player loses 1d4 points to the Gremlin Fund."

I rather enjoy the idea of Sheep Gnomes plummeting from the sky. :)

>C. The Wine List
>
>The following mixes of Gnomes are permitted:
>
>A Winter Gnome plus a Water Gnome makes an Ice Gnome.
>
>A Summer Gnome plus a Air Gnome makes a Fire Gnome.
>
>Three Basic Gnomes makes a Gnome of a random type.
>
>A Winter Gnome plus a Summer Gnome makes a Yoyo Gnome.
>
>A Fire Gnome plus a Ice Gnome makes a Yoyo Gnome.
>
>A Water Gnome plus an Herb Gnome makes a Tea Gnome.
>
>A Grain Gnome plus a Water Gnome makes a Beer Gnome.
>
>An Earth Gnome plus a Grain Gnome makes a Potato Gnome.
>
>An Earth Gnome plus a Summer Gnome makes a Grape Gnome.
>
>A Winter Gnome plus an Earth Gnome makes a Russian Gnome.

Change "a Air Gnome" to "an Air Gnome".

>Repeal all rules with the keyword 'Gnome' except r441.
>Repeal all rules with the keyword 'Gnomes'. [[Sheep Gnomes is the only
>one]]
>Repeal r632. [[Garbage Cans]]

See the comment for B.12.

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:18:02 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (end of nweek stuff)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/19/02 at 12:07 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> Proposal:
>
>{{
>  __Save Our Limbs__
>
> In paragraph 5 change {{At the end of an nweek}} to {{At the end of
>an nweek other than the nweek in which the Player borrowed the
>points}}
>
>}}

You didn't say paragraph 5 of what. :)  Howzabout I just include this in my megaprop?

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:48:05 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Strategy
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So far, there are 5 people in the Holy Order of Points, and there are 10
players who have done something this week and hence are likely to vote.

To those other 5 players (Reality Police, Baron von Skippy, Naath, Ed,
and me): I urge you to not join the HOOP, and instead to vote for "The
Second Mouse Gets The Cheese" - it is in your own advantage.

Joining the HOOP gives you and the other greedy people 20 points.
Voting for The Second Mouse gives you and the other non-HOOP people 30
points, as well as the satisfaction of thwarting Wonko's plan.

The members of the HOOP will obviously vote against it, but that should
leave the totals at 5 for and 4 against, since Wonko is now Cursed.

Keep in mind that I get no additional points from the passage of the
proposal. I'm doing this for the satisfaction.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:55:58 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Strategy
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/21/02 at 12:48 AM Rob Speer wrote:

>So far, there are 5 people in the Holy Order of Points, and there are 10
>players who have done something this week and hence are likely to vote.
>
>To those other 5 players (Reality Police, Baron von Skippy, Naath, Ed,
>and me): I urge you to not join the HOOP, and instead to vote for "The
>Second Mouse Gets The Cheese" - it is in your own advantage.
>
>Joining the HOOP gives you and the other greedy people 20 points.
>Voting for The Second Mouse gives you and the other non-HOOP people 30
>points, as well as the satisfaction of thwarting Wonko's plan.
>
>The members of the HOOP will obviously vote against it, but that should
>leave the totals at 5 for and 4 against, since Wonko is now Cursed.
>
>Keep in mind that I get no additional points from the passage of the
>proposal. I'm doing this for the satisfaction.
>-- 
>Rob Speer

You wanna see greedy? :)

Tell ya what...My vote on this proposal is for sale.  If I get six people to each give me five points, so that my loss is compensated for, I'll vote Yea on Prop. 716.

That'll give youse guys at least 25 points each, and let me keep the 20 I'll get once someone else joins the HOOP (which will still happen after prop 716 passes).

						Glotmorf

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 02:39:11 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop 709 revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/20/02 at 4:54 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>> [[ "Collection of same" meaning if someone wants to go to the trouble
>of=
>>  writing a web-friendly interface AND a lynx-friendly interface AND a=
>>  line-oriented interface, etc., it would all collectively be considered
>a=
>>  single "software system".  Personally I can see this being a desirable=
>>  thing, given enough actions to process. ]]
>
> breadbox had a voting machinery for acka where you could either use
>email (to the bot) or a web-browser, which worked quite well - I used
>both at times.
>
> WC.

How did the email voting work?  Did you have to put a password in the email, to prevent header-spoofing?  Or did it just rely on the "from" address?

I'm considering a password and session key combo for email voting, and for email proposal submission and revision.

						Glotmorf

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop 709 revision 
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:25:43 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > How did the email voting work?  Did you have to put a password in the>  email, to prevent header-spoofing?  Or did it just rely on the "from">  address?

 I don't remember if email voting had a password or not, I know the
web form did (it'd be a bit silly otherwise anyway!).

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 07:01:14 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Thcarf Tranthfer
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So... what nday/nweek was that? Or, more relevantly, what's my virtual gender?

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 07:17:39 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 RESULTS
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> R204 comes after r32, so r32 takes precedence.  That
> means, even if r204 says something can't happen, if r32
> says it does happen, it happens.
>
That's true, actually (I'd just assumed r204 had precedence). Fortunately (or not), it doesn't matter, because r32 doesn't say it happens. It says the proosal is deemed to have failed, but that only happened after the effects had already been applied. R32 doesn't say that the effects are rolled back, so the veto did nothing (except, ironically, to give me more points (the ones from the passing, and the ones from the vetoing)).

*buth*, my dear.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 07:22:30 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
    (Friday night)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> What part of "by adding, changing, or repealing rules" don't you
> understand? Is it the word "by"?
>
> In this case, the preposition "by" means "using the method of", and the
> rules are the method of generating these effects, so the rule applies.
>
Rob, my *buzz* dear *buzz*, I've *crackle* theldom theen an ekthplanathion ath... helpful ath thith. I can't begin to thay how much *crackle* light you've thed on the thituation.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:07:19 -0500
Subject: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Monday evening)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> CFJ 688 is appealed; it goes to The Upper House. Unfortunately, the rules
> of The Upper House don't require that the members not be parties to the
> relevant CFJ, or that they be active players... the three members of the
> House randomly chosen for this appeal are The Reality Police, Glotmorf,
> and Congenital Optimist.
>
I hereby delegate this responsibility to The Voice (who I selected at random from those members of the upper house who weren't BvS or myself). This doesn't have any rule-based standing, but I will follow his lead on this appeal (i.e., I'll cut and paste any psuedo-analysis etc. he chooses to post).

*buth*, my dear.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:25:29 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal: Violent green.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/21/02 at 7:06 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

><proosal>
><title>Violent green.</title>
><body>
>Create a new rule, titled "Not the same as apathy.", with a chutzpah of 5,
>and the following @@@-delimited text:
>@@@
>A player may become Disinterested by stating that they are doing so. At
>this time they are removed from any groups or football teams they are in,
>fumble the football if they have it, and are placed in Limbo if they are
>not there already.
>
>Disinterested players:
>Have a score, charm, and entropy of 0.
>Are not eligible to receive the sushi, the scarf, the token of proposals,
>or the immunity idol.
>May not play football.
>Are in Limbo.
>May not give, and are not eligible to receive, a Kick in the Ass.
>May not be in a group.
>Are treated as if they have the Immunity Idol.
>Are not eligible to receive the Immunity Idol.
>
>This rule takes precedence over any other which would otherwise alter the
>state of a Disinterested player to be in conflict with this rule.
>@@@
>[[Have I missed anything? All I really want to leave are proosing and
>judging. Oh, and voting.]]
>
>The player who submitted this proposal becomes Disinterested.
></body>
></proosal>
>
>uin.

How about adding a provision for once again becoming Interested?

Hey, it could happen.

Aside from that...perhaps, "May not possess, receive, acquire and/or purchase Objects"?

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:50:54 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal: Violent
  green.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/21/02 at 9:25 AM Glotmorf wrote:

>On 5/21/02 at 7:06 AM Gavin Doig wrote:
>
>><proosal>
>><title>Violent green.</title>
>><body>
>>Create a new rule, titled "Not the same as apathy.", with a chutzpah of 5,
>>and the following @@@-delimited text:
>>@@@
>>A player may become Disinterested by stating that they are doing so. At
>>this time they are removed from any groups or football teams they are in,
>>fumble the football if they have it, and are placed in Limbo if they are
>>not there already.
>>
>>Disinterested players:
>>Have a score, charm, and entropy of 0.
>>Are not eligible to receive the sushi, the scarf, the token of proposals,
>>or the immunity idol.
>>May not play football.
>>Are in Limbo.
>>May not give, and are not eligible to receive, a Kick in the Ass.
>>May not be in a group.
>>Are treated as if they have the Immunity Idol.
>>Are not eligible to receive the Immunity Idol.
>>
>>This rule takes precedence over any other which would otherwise alter the
>>state of a Disinterested player to be in conflict with this rule.
>>@@@
>>[[Have I missed anything? All I really want to leave are proosing and
>>judging. Oh, and voting.]]
>>
>>The player who submitted this proposal becomes Disinterested.
>></body>
>></proosal>
>>
>>uin.
>
>How about adding a provision for once again becoming Interested?
>
>Hey, it could happen.
>
>Aside from that...perhaps, "May not possess, receive, acquire and/or
>purchase Objects"?
>
>						Glotmorf

I suppose I should say...I'm not real inclined to vote in favor of this the way it is now.  Not because of the grid, or football, or the scarf...but because these things are what the game has become.  It carries with it certain restrictions, such as Entropy and the Sushi, and those are imposed on all players.  To say all you want to do is propose, vote and judge is fine, and that's generally the basis of any given Nomic, but to say you don't want to be subject to the same restrictions, procedures, etc. that other players are is to say you don't want to be playing the game that B Nomic has become.  And if that's the case...why are you here?  Why aren't you off starting or joining some other Nomic without the rules that this one has now, rather than trying to play in a game without following the rules?

I'm not asking you to leave...I'm just wondering why, if you're so Disinterested, you should stay.

Drop the zero Score, Charm and Entropy requirement, and I might feel better.  Otherwise, that's too much of letting you do what you want with no consequence for your actions.

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Whee!
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:35:21 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > I make the Insta-Rule:
 >
 > {{ It is illegal to remain in grid location (10, 8). }}
 >
 > [[This should be fun.]]
 >
  I make the Insta Rule:

  {{ It is legal to enter grid location (2, 8). }}

[[note that the l word is a quotation]]

  I enter the grid location (2,8)

[[ditto]]

  I take the football.

  WC

-Regardless of the legality of entering (2,8), you're still 6 squares, or 2 
nweeks dead sprint, away.-

                                               -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be legal?
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 14:38:25 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Monday 20 May 2002 23:10, you wrote:
> On 5/20/02 at 6:41 PM Wonko wrote:
> >I make a Charter Prop:
> >{{
> >__Jumping through HOOPs__
> >
> >This is a Charter Prop.
> >
> >Create:
> >
> >{{
> >__HOOP mk. 2__
> >
> >There exists a Society called the Lovely Order of Points, or the LOOP.
> >
> >Players may join the LOOP if they have never been a member by declaring
> >that
> >they do so in a Public Forum.
> >
> >Any player may oust a member of the LOOP by taking 20 points from the
> >Gremlin Fund and giving them to the player being ousted.
> >
> >Wonko is the first member of the LOOP.
> >}}
> >
> >}}
> >
> >--
> >Wonko
>
> It's valid as a Charter Prop.  But the act of taking 20 points from the
> Gremlin Fund isn't permitted anywhere in the rules, so members of the LOOP
> can't be ousted at this time...
>
> 						Glotmorf

If it wasn't a charter prop, it'd work.

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop 709 revision
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 14:41:32 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 21 May 2002 02:39, you wrote:
> On 5/20/02 at 4:54 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> >> [[ "Collection of same" meaning if someone wants to go to the trouble
> >
> >of=
> >
> >>  writing a web-friendly interface AND a lynx-friendly interface AND a=
> >>  line-oriented interface, etc., it would all collectively be considered
> >
> >a=
> >
> >>  single "software system".  Personally I can see this being a desirable=
> >>  thing, given enough actions to process. ]]
> >
> > breadbox had a voting machinery for acka where you could either use
> >email (to the bot) or a web-browser, which worked quite well - I used
> >both at times.
> >
> > WC.
>
> How did the email voting work?  Did you have to put a password in the
> email, to prevent header-spoofing?  Or did it just rely on the "from"
> address?
>
> I'm considering a password and session key combo for email voting, and for
> email proposal submission and revision.
>
> 						Glotmorf

What about pgp keys?

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Whee!
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 14:43:08 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 21 May 2002 12:35, you wrote:
> [[note that the l word is a quotation]]

Huh?

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:31:35 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Whee!
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Tuesday 21 May 2002 12:35, you wrote:
>> [[note that the l word is a quotation]]
> 
> Huh?

Location, I believe. Too many syllables.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:32:52 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be
	legal?
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/20/02 at 6:41 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> I make a Charter Prop:
>> {{
>> __Jumping through HOOPs__
>> 
>> This is a Charter Prop.
>> 
>> Create:
>> 
>> {{
>> __HOOP mk. 2__
>> 
>> There exists a Society called the Lovely Order of Points, or the LOOP.
>> 
>> Players may join the LOOP if they have never been a member by declaring
>> that
>> they do so in a Public Forum.
>> 
>> Any player may oust a member of the LOOP by taking 20 points from the
>> Gremlin Fund and giving them to the player being ousted.
>> 
>> Wonko is the first member of the LOOP.
>> }}
>> 
>> }}
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> It's valid as a Charter Prop.  But the act of taking 20 points from the
> Gremlin Fund isn't permitted anywhere in the rules, so members of the LOOP
> can't be ousted at this time...

But members of the Club must abide by its Charter... That is in the rule. If
the rules declare that I must act in accordance with a text that permits me
to take points from the Gremlin Fund, then I can take points from the
Gremlin Fund.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:40:15 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
	(Friday night)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 05:14:24PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
>>> R155 also says:
>>> 
>>> "If a proposal, by adding, changing, or repealing rules, will generate
>>> effects
>>> which are based on the way players vote on that proposal, or any other
>>> specific proposal or proposals identified in the proposal, then those rules
>>> generate no effects based on the way players vote on that particular
>>> proposal."
>>> 
>>> It says this in R155/1.  The CFJ was on R155/0, which didn't say this.  CFJ
>>> 254 doesn't apply to R155/1, then, because R155/1 is a significantly
>>> different
>>> rule.
>> 
>> 
>> Nonetheless, the same logic applies. The proposal does not generate effects
>> based on how players voted. The rule may, but the rules are not the
>> proposal.
> 
> What part of "by adding, changing, or repealing rules" don't you
> understand? Is it the word "by"?
> 
> In this case, the preposition "by" means "using the method of", and the
> rules are the method of generating these effects, so the rule applies.

The sentence is useless. A proposal, by adding, changing, or repealing
rules, will *never* generate effects. That's what the CFJ decided - that the
proposal is not generating those effects, the rules created by the proposal
are.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:48:53 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A bit of Neatness
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Of course it's a silent f! What other type of f is there? ;)

In p715, I make the following **** delimited changes:

****
Change "Gremlins" to "Gnomes" in section A.3.

Change "with a Gnome in eir Gnome Bags" to "with a Gnome in eir Gnome Bag"
in section A.5.

Change "both Gnomes" to "the Gnomes thus mixed" in section A.5.

Add a "." after "location" in section A.7.

Move the first 'n' in "an Fire Gnome" in section B.3. to be right after the
'a' in "a Air Gnome" in section C.

In section B.6. replace 'to turn the Brook the squeezing player is standing
in into Mud.' with 'to turn the square the squeezing player is standing on
into Earth, unless there is a Brook on that square, in which case the square
turns to Mud.'

Take out the last sentence of section B.10.

Replace section B.12. with:
{{
B.12. Sheep Gnomes

There exist Gnomes called Sheep Gnomes.
At the beginning of a nweek, if no Sheep Gnomes exist, 2 Sheep Gnomes shall
drop upon random squares on the grid. If a Sheep Gnome lands on a square
occupied by an impassable object, then the Sheep is destroyed and the square
it landed on, each square consective to that square, and all objects and
entities in those squares gain the attribute Wet. If a Sheep Gnome lands on
a player, that player loses 1d4 points to the Gremlin Fund.
}}

****

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 17:07:59 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be
  legal?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/21/02 at 4:32 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/20/02 at 6:41 PM Wonko wrote:
>> 
>>> I make a Charter Prop:
>>> {{
>>> __Jumping through HOOPs__
>>> 
>>> This is a Charter Prop.
>>> 
>>> Create:
>>> 
>>> {{
>>> __HOOP mk. 2__
>>> 
>>> There exists a Society called the Lovely Order of Points, or the LOOP.
>>> 
>>> Players may join the LOOP if they have never been a member by declaring
>>> that
>>> they do so in a Public Forum.
>>> 
>>> Any player may oust a member of the LOOP by taking 20 points from the
>>> Gremlin Fund and giving them to the player being ousted.
>>> 
>>> Wonko is the first member of the LOOP.
>>> }}
>>> 
>>> }}
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Wonko
>> 
>> It's valid as a Charter Prop.  But the act of taking 20 points from the
>> Gremlin Fund isn't permitted anywhere in the rules, so members of the
>LOOP
>> can't be ousted at this time...
>
>But members of the Club must abide by its Charter... That is in the rule.
>If
>the rules declare that I must act in accordance with a text that permits me
>to take points from the Gremlin Fund, then I can take points from the
>Gremlin Fund.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

This is the same argument uin used with eir glasses of champagne.  My argument's the same.  Just because a particular action is legal, and that action requires the legality of another action, that doesn't mean the other action is legal.  The Charter you've described in your Charter Prop states the method by which people can be kicked out of your club; it doesn't say it's legal to actually perform that method.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 00:15:37 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: judgement
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/21/02 at 10:56 PM The Voice wrote:

>I judge CFI 712 to be TRUE.
>
>Since there is no way in the club charter of the HOoP which allows for 
>players to join (except for voting for it, which is illegal), Glotmorf did 
>not join the HOoP.  Unfortunately, this does nothing for the other members 
>of the HOoP, who also should not be members (Voice runs away from Rob's 
>proposal), so I submit the following CFI:
>
>Statement:  Wonko is the sole member of the Holy Order of Points.
>
>Analysis: I cite my analysis of CFI 712.
>
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

Hm.  Guess I'm not a member, then.  Which means I won't suffer under Prop 716.

Course, my vote's still for sale...:)

						Glotmorf

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: judgement
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:51:41 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 21 May 2002 22:56, you wrote:
> I judge CFI 712 to be TRUE.
>
> Since there is no way in the club charter of the HOoP which allows for
> players to join (except for voting for it, which is illegal), Glotmorf did
> not join the HOoP.  Unfortunately, this does nothing for the other members
> of the HOoP, who also should not be members (Voice runs away from Rob's
> proposal), so I submit the following CFI:
>
> Statement:  Wonko is the sole member of the Holy Order of Points.
>
> Analysis: I cite my analysis of CFI 712.

Yes! Now I can vote yes for 'greed dosen't pay'!

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:03:33 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: It's like Microsoft, but different.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/21/02 at 9:53 PM Alex Truelsen wrote:

>[[Well, it seems nobody noticed when I changed this last time. maybe it 
>didn't send. Anyway, now I have the time and inclination to fix it. I 
>present to you vSOI Mark II:]]
>
>Change the entire text of Proposal 695 to the following BREADSAYSTOAST 
>delimited text:
>
>BREADSAYSTOAST
>Create a club charter with the following DINK-delimited text:
>
>DINK
>__von Skippy Overproduction, Inc.__
>
>There exists a Club called von Skippy Overproduction, Inc., or vSOI.
>
>Players may join vSOI only by consent of the CEO of vSOI, or by unanimous 
>consent of all non-CEO members of vSOI, so long as there are more than two 
>non-CEO members of vSOI.
>
>Non-CEO members of vSOI may be ousted by the CEO or by the consent of all 
>other non-CEO members of vSOI, or they may resign by posting eir intention 
>to do so in a message to a public forum. The CEO of vSOI may resign as
>well, 
>in which case the member who has been a member the longest becomes CEO, or
>e 
>may be Sacked by al non-CEO members posting messages to a Public Forum 
>declaring that they wish to Sack the CEO, in which case the first member
>to 
>declare eir intention to Sack the CEO shall become CEO. If not all non-CEO 
>members declare eir intention to Sack the CEO within one nweek of the
>first 
>player's declaration, the first player to declare eir intention to Sack
>the 
>CEO shall be ousted. A Sacked CEO becomes a non-CEO member of vSOI.
>
>vSOI may not make proposals.
>
>The CEO of vSOI may not also be the Prez of M-Tek. In the event of this 
>happening, the CEO of vSOI shall be replaced as though e had resigned, and 
>shall be made a non-CEO member of vSOI.
>
>Baron von Skippy is the first member of vSOI, and the first CEO of vSOI.
>DINK
>
>Create a new rule with the following POIK delimited text:
>
>POIK
>__Overseas Gnomes__
>
>There exists a game entity called the Gnome Account. Any member of vSOI
>may 
>purchase a random Gnome for 2 points, or a specific Gnome for 4 points,
>from 
>the vSOI Gnome Account. Any non-member player may purchase a random Gnome 
>from the vSOI Gnome Account for 4 points, or a specific Gnome for 8
>points. 
>If at the end of any nweek there are more than 100 points in the Gnome 
>Account, all points in the Gnome Account shall be removed the Gnome
>Account, 
>and each member of vSOI given G/M points, rounded down, where G is the 
>number of points in the Gnome Account and M is the number of members of 
>vSOI, with any remaining points being returned to the Gnome Account.
>
>At the start of each nweek, each member of vSOI shall recieve one random 
>Gnome.
>POIK
>BREADSAYSTOAST
>
>[[*deep breath* Now then, time for everyone's favorite game. What have I 
>done wrong that will confuse people or destroy the ruleset from the inside 
>out?]]
>
>[[oh, and note that "delimited" and "overproduction" are both quotes.]]
>
>                                           BvS

Hm.  Well...first off, what is "overproduction" a quote from?  You can't quote yourself any more, you know...:)

Second, in the Overseas Gnomes rule...You say people can purchase Gnomes from the Gnome Account.  Is it that you mean people can purchase Gnomes, and the money used for the purchase goes into the Gnome Account?  Or do you forsee the Gnome Account containing Gnomes?

This is basically a Gnome Co-Op company, with profits being distributed to members of the cooperative?

						Glotmorf

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: It's like Microsoft, but different.
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:57:04 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 21 May 2002 21:53, you wrote:
> [[Well, it seems nobody noticed when I changed this last time. maybe it
> didn't send. Anyway, now I have the time and inclination to fix it. I
> present to you vSOI Mark II:]]
>
> Change the entire text of Proposal 695 to the following BREADSAYSTOAST
> delimited text:
>
> BREADSAYSTOAST
> Create a club charter with the following DINK-delimited text:
>
> DINK
> __von Skippy Overproduction, Inc.__
>
> There exists a Club called von Skippy Overproduction, Inc., or vSOI.
>
> Players may join vSOI only by consent of the CEO of vSOI, or by unanimous
> consent of all non-CEO members of vSOI, so long as there are more than two
> non-CEO members of vSOI.
>
> Non-CEO members of vSOI may be ousted by the CEO or by the consent of all
> other non-CEO members of vSOI, or they may resign by posting eir intention
> to do so in a message to a public forum. The CEO of vSOI may resign as
> well, in which case the member who has been a member the longest becomes
> CEO, or e may be Sacked by al non-CEO members posting messages to a Public
> Forum declaring that they wish to Sack the CEO, in which case the first
> member to declare eir intention to Sack the CEO shall become CEO. If not
> all non-CEO members declare eir intention to Sack the CEO within one nweek
> of the first player's declaration, the first player to declare eir

Declaration: 4 syl.

> intention to Sack the CEO shall be ousted. A Sacked CEO becomes a non-CEO
> member of vSOI.
>
> vSOI may not make proposals.

Why not? Maybe reduce it to only 1 or 2...

>
> The CEO of vSOI may not also be the Prez of M-Tek. In the event of this
> happening, the CEO of vSOI shall be replaced as though e had resigned, and
> shall be made a non-CEO member of vSOI.
>
> Baron von Skippy is the first member of vSOI, and the first CEO of vSOI.
> DINK
>
> Create a new rule with the following POIK delimited text:
>
> POIK
> __Overseas Gnomes__
>
> There exists a game entity called the Gnome Account. Any member of vSOI may
> purchase a random Gnome for 2 points, or a specific Gnome for 4 points,

Maybe a discount for the CEO?

> from the vSOI Gnome Account. Any non-member player may purchase a random

Only part of the points should go back into the acct. Maybe the rest to the 
Gremlin fund?

> Gnome from the vSOI Gnome Account for 4 points, or a specific Gnome for 8
> points. If at the end of any nweek there are more than 100 points in the
> Gnome Account, all points in the Gnome Account shall be removed the Gnome

Insert 'from' between 'removed' and 'the'.

> Account, and each member of vSOI given G/M points, rounded down, where G is
> the number of points in the Gnome Account and M is the number of members of
> vSOI, with any remaining points being returned to the Gnome Account.
>
> At the start of each nweek, each member of vSOI shall recieve one random
> Gnome.

Should the account be depleted by this?

> POIK
> BREADSAYSTOAST
>
> [[*deep breath* Now then, time for everyone's favorite game. What have I
> done wrong that will confuse people or destroy the ruleset from the inside
> out?]]
>
> [[oh, and note that "delimited" and "overproduction" are both quotes.]]

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:17:10 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be
	legal?
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/21/02 at 4:32 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>> 
>>> On 5/20/02 at 6:41 PM Wonko wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I make a Charter Prop:
>>>> {{
>>>> __Jumping through HOOPs__
>>>> 
>>>> This is a Charter Prop.
>>>> 
>>>> Create:
>>>> 
>>>> {{
>>>> __HOOP mk. 2__
>>>> 
>>>> There exists a Society called the Lovely Order of Points, or the LOOP.
>>>> 
>>>> Players may join the LOOP if they have never been a member by declaring
>>>> that
>>>> they do so in a Public Forum.
>>>> 
>>>> Any player may oust a member of the LOOP by taking 20 points from the
>>>> Gremlin Fund and giving them to the player being ousted.
>>>> 
>>>> Wonko is the first member of the LOOP.
>>>> }}
>>>> 
>>>> }}
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Wonko
>>> 
>>> It's valid as a Charter Prop.  But the act of taking 20 points from the
>>> Gremlin Fund isn't permitted anywhere in the rules, so members of the
>> LOOP
>>> can't be ousted at this time...
>> 
>> But members of the Club must abide by its Charter... That is in the rule.
>> If
>> the rules declare that I must act in accordance with a text that permits me
>> to take points from the Gremlin Fund, then I can take points from the
>> Gremlin Fund.
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> This is the same argument uin used with eir glasses of champagne.  My
> argument's the same.  Just because a particular action is legal, and that
> action requires the legality of another action, that doesn't mean the other
> action is legal.  The Charter you've described in your Charter Prop states the
> method by which people can be kicked out of your club; it doesn't say it's
> legal to actually perform that method.

It's not the same at all. The Champagne case deals with the legality of
performing actions on nonexistent objects. The LOOP, however, declares that
players may perform a certain action, and thus they may. The analogous
situation with Champagne would be if a player had a glass of Champagne and
tried to drink it, and you claimed that it was illegal because while the
Alcohol rule says that players may drink Champagne by posting a message to a
public forum, nowhere do the rules explicitly state that players may post
msgs to public forums.

-- 
Wonko

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be legal? 
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 23:19:14 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Quoth Glotmorf,
> > This is the same argument uin used with eir glasses of champagne.  My
> > argument's the same.  Just because a particular action is legal, and that
> > action requires the legality of another action, that doesn't mean the other
> > action is legal.  The Charter you've described in your Charter Prop states  the
> > method by which people can be kicked out of your club; it doesn't say it's
> > legal to actually perform that method.
> 
> It's not the same at all. The Champagne case deals with the legality of
> performing actions on nonexistent objects. The LOOP, however, declares that
> players may perform a certain action, and thus they may. The analogous
> situation with Champagne would be if a player had a glass of Champagne and
> tried to drink it, and you claimed that it was illegal because while the
> Alcohol rule says that players may drink Champagne by posting a message to a
> public forum, nowhere do the rules explicitly state that players may post
> msgs to public forums.
> 
 But the Charter of LOOP isn't part of the rules, so since the rules
don't specify a way for LOOP or its players to take money from the
Gremlin Fund they can't.

 WC.

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Tell me this...
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:22:22 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

When was I assigned a CFJ? I can't seem to find a notice in my archives.

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:35:26 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The casino(and my first prop!)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 06:01:27PM -0400, bd wrote:
> If a Player occupies the same square as the Casino, and the Casino is Open, e 
> can place a bet of any even number of points that is greater than or equal to 
> 10 and less than or equal to 50 and less than or equal to the number of 
> Points they possess. Those points are transferred to the Gremlin fund. 2d6 is 
> rolled for the Player and the Casino. If the Player rolls higher, 1.5 * 
> (number of points bet) is transferred from the Gremlin fund and to the 
> Player.

Hmm. You have to roll higher (not just equal) _and_ you only get 50% of
your bet added on?

So if you bet 10 points, you have a 44.4% chance of getting 15, or an
expected payoff of 6.66. That's evil on multiple levels.

Nobody would use this Casino.

-- 
Rob Speer

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The casino(and my first prop!)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:39:07 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wednesday 22 May 2002 18:35, you wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 06:01:27PM -0400, bd wrote:
> > If a Player occupies the same square as the Casino, and the Casino is
> > Open, e can place a bet of any even number of points that is greater than
> > or equal to 10 and less than or equal to 50 and less than or equal to the
> > number of Points they possess. Those points are transferred to the
> > Gremlin fund. 2d6 is rolled for the Player and the Casino. If the Player
> > rolls higher, 1.5 * (number of points bet) is transferred from the
> > Gremlin fund and to the Player.
>
> Hmm. You have to roll higher (not just equal) _and_ you only get 50% of
> your bet added on?
>
> So if you bet 10 points, you have a 44.4% chance of getting 15, or an
> expected payoff of 6.66. That's evil on multiple levels.
>
> Nobody would use this Casino.

Really? You underestimate the power of the dark side of the force. Anyway, the 
points I get for its passing are independent of its use ;)

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: It's like Microsoft, but different.
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:04:47 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hm.  Well...first off, what is "overproduction" a quote from?  You can't 
quote yourself any more, you know...:)
-Well, that puts a damper on it. It's quoted from my signature when I have 
the Sushi. Ah well, that's easily enough fixed.-

Second, in the Overseas Gnomes rule...You say people can purchase Gnomes 
from the Gnome Account.  Is it that you mean people can purchase Gnomes, and 
the money used for the purchase goes into the Gnome Account?  Or do you 
forsee the Gnome Account containing Gnomes?
-Well, I intended that former. Would there be a problem with the latter?-

This is basically a Gnome Co-Op company, with profits being distributed to 
members of the cooperative?
-*considers* Yes, just about. You want in? I'll note to people in general 
that anyone interested in joining can feel free to ask, should this pass...-

						Glotmorf

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: It's like Microsoft, but different.
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:13:09 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > of the first player's declaration, the first player to declare eir

Declaration: 4 syl.
-Rule 395/1: "Declaration of Respect." It's a quote. (Thank you, 
ultra-experimental text search! Wait, not that it matters, once my DimShip 
is launched, Dave... I believe it's after the end of nweek 15, and I set 50 
entropy ballast.-

 > vSOI may not make proposals.

Why not? Maybe reduce it to only 1 or 2...
-Too many headaches. That's not the point of vSOI, anyway. It's a way to 
introduce Gnomes into circulation.-

 > purchase a random Gnome for 2 points, or a specific Gnome for 4 points,

Maybe a discount for the CEO?
-That's not a bad idea, except e would be getting Gnomes for next to free. 
Maybe two Gnomes per nweek instead of one?-

 > from the vSOI Gnome Account. Any non-member player may purchase a random

Only part of the points should go back into the acct. Maybe the rest to the 
Gremlin fund?
-What does it need them for? It's got about 300 now. That was the original 
destination, yes, but I think I'll just keep the wealth in the family.-

 > Gnome Account, all points in the Gnome Account shall be removed the Gnome

Insert 'from' between 'removed' and 'the'.
-Oops.-

 > At the start of each nweek, each member of vSOI shall recieve one random 
Gnome.

Should the account be depleted by this?
-I picture vSOI as a sort of factory, with members being stockholders. They 
get freebies, paid for by profits without being marked up to full retail, 
meaning a minimal loss for the company.-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: insta-rule
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:16:54 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I enact the following Insta-rule:

It is legal to enter grid location (2,7).

I do so.

I tackle Wild Card.

I punt the football towards (12,17), or if that is not legal, as close to
that square as I can.

-But none of that is legal. Just because you can LEGALLY enter a square 
doesn't mean you can ACTUALLY enter it.-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:02:18 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: insta-rule
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/22/02 at 9:16 PM Alex Truelsen wrote:

>I enact the following Insta-rule:
>
>It is legal to enter grid location (2,7).
>
>I do so.
>
>I tackle Wild Card.
>
>I punt the football towards (12,17), or if that is not legal, as close to
>that square as I can.
>
>-But none of that is legal. Just because you can LEGALLY enter a square 
>doesn't mean you can ACTUALLY enter it.-

Well, the Insta-Rule is.  I can't say about the rest of it...:)

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:02:52 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: It's like Microsoft,
  but different.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/22/02 at 9:04 PM Alex Truelsen wrote:

>Hm.  Well...first off, what is "overproduction" a quote from?  You can't 
>quote yourself any more, you know...:)
>-Well, that puts a damper on it. It's quoted from my signature when I have 
>the Sushi. Ah well, that's easily enough fixed.-
>
>Second, in the Overseas Gnomes rule...You say people can purchase Gnomes 
>from the Gnome Account.  Is it that you mean people can purchase Gnomes,
>and 
>the money used for the purchase goes into the Gnome Account?  Or do you 
>forsee the Gnome Account containing Gnomes?
>-Well, I intended that former. Would there be a problem with the latter?-
>
>This is basically a Gnome Co-Op company, with profits being distributed to 
>members of the cooperative?
>-*considers* Yes, just about. You want in? I'll note to people in general 
>that anyone interested in joining can feel free to ask, should this
>pass...-
>
>						Glotmorf
>

Sure.  Hold a seat on the board for me.  Thanks.

						Glotmorf

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:07:08 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ 690/0
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Wednesday 22 May 2002 18:27, you wrote:
> <snip>
>> As Glotmorf has repeatedly insisted, Charter Props are not normal Props.
>> Because the Charter Rule says so, Charter Props are put on the Ballot and
>> voted on. However, the Charter Rule does not account for the following
>> things which they are excluded from by not being proposals:
>> They don't recieve Serial Numbers (r5)
>> They may attempt to temporarily circumvent the rules (r10)
>> They may not be revised (r19)
>> **They are not processed, nor do their actions take effect**, nor may they
>> be vetoed, nor do they cause dimension changes to their proponents (r32)
>> They need not be displayed for public review (r211)
>> They may not be rectified by the admin to change 'day' to 'nday' (r257)
>> They are not exempt from the Scarf's effects (r258)
>> They may not modify the LOGAS (r260)
> 
> Additional analysis:
> I quote rule 631/1:
> 
> Groups, as defined in Rule Five-Seven-Eight, also known as Clubs, can be
> formed by a Player making a Charter Prop, which is like a normal prop. in
> that it's added to the nweek ballot and voted on. A Charter Prop, though,
> passes unless 2/3 of the votes it receives are against it.
> 
> It goes on to put more restrictions, but it does not say that the charter prop
> is different in that it has no effect.

So you believe that Charter Props *are* proposals?

-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:08:22 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be
	legal? 
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan David Amery,

>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>>> This is the same argument uin used with eir glasses of champagne.  My
>>> argument's the same.  Just because a particular action is legal, and that
>>> action requires the legality of another action, that doesn't mean the other
>>> action is legal.  The Charter you've described in your Charter Prop states
>>> the
>>> method by which people can be kicked out of your club; it doesn't say it's
>>> legal to actually perform that method.
>> 
>> It's not the same at all. The Champagne case deals with the legality of
>> performing actions on nonexistent objects. The LOOP, however, declares that
>> players may perform a certain action, and thus they may. The analogous
>> situation with Champagne would be if a player had a glass of Champagne and
>> tried to drink it, and you claimed that it was illegal because while the
>> Alcohol rule says that players may drink Champagne by posting a message to a
>> public forum, nowhere do the rules explicitly state that players may post
>> msgs to public forums.
>> 
> But the Charter of LOOP isn't part of the rules, so since the rules
> don't specify a way for LOOP or its players to take money from the
> Gremlin Fund they can't.
> 
> WC.

It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my club's
charter.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:34:22 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pseudocode action
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> Mr. A...I submit the following pseudocode-structured action:
> 
> while ((the game continues) and (I haven't cancelled this action))
> {
> if ((Wonko's LOOP, in its current form, is implemented)
> and
> (it is legal for players to take points from the Gremlin Fund))
> {
> while (at least 20 points remain in the Gremlin Fund)
> {
> I join the LOOP.
> I oust myself from the LOOP.
> }
> }
> }
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 

Nice try, but the LOOP says you can't join unless you've never been a
member. It's not actually a scam - it gives everyone 20 points and dies.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 00:17:30 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be
  legal?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 5/22/02 at 10:08 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
>
>>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>>>> This is the same argument uin used with eir glasses of champagne.  My
>>>> argument's the same.  Just because a particular action is legal, and
>that
>>>> action requires the legality of another action, that doesn't mean the
>other
>>>> action is legal.  The Charter you've described in your Charter Prop
>states
>>>> the
>>>> method by which people can be kicked out of your club; it doesn't say
>it's
>>>> legal to actually perform that method.
>>> 
>>> It's not the same at all. The Champagne case deals with the legality of
>>> performing actions on nonexistent objects. The LOOP, however, declares
>that
>>> players may perform a certain action, and thus they may. The analogous
>>> situation with Champagne would be if a player had a glass of Champagne
>and
>>> tried to drink it, and you claimed that it was illegal because while the
>>> Alcohol rule says that players may drink Champagne by posting a message
>to a
>>> public forum, nowhere do the rules explicitly state that players may
>post
>>> msgs to public forums.
>>> 
>> But the Charter of LOOP isn't part of the rules, so since the rules
>> don't specify a way for LOOP or its players to take money from the
>> Gremlin Fund they can't.
>> 
>> WC.
>
>It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my club's
>charter.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Yeah, but r578, which is the core rule for Clubs, says, "The internal structure of a society is freeform, restricted only be [sic] the rules of the game." That means, just because it's in a Club's rules that such-and-such is the way to do something, said such-and-such procedure still has to abide by the B Nomic rules.

And while you must abide by your Club's charter, there's nothing that's forcing you to oust anyone. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 00:42:22 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Screw it.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/22/02 at 10:36 PM Wonko wrote:

>if, at any time, proposal 716 fails and I have not rescinded this action,
>I
>evict myself from the HOOP and change my vote on the LOOP Charter Prop to
>NO.
>
>There. I'm sick of trying to figure out how these things work. Y'all agree
>not to fine me 30 points, and I'll agree not to try to exploit Charter
>Props
>anymore (for the moment, at least). I'm working on a more specific Charter
>Prop rule right now. We'll see what happens.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

In case there's any uncertainty, the following aren't assaults, arguments, accusations, or any attempt at combative imposition of ideas, philosophy or game-related legality.  They're earnest questions.  Just to be clear.

Should it be acceptable that any group of players can form a Club they choose, with whatever rules they choose, without having to go through the proposal process, as long as said Club has no external effect on the gamestate?  There'd be little in the way of inherent barrier for such a thing -- there's nothing that stops players from making clubs on their own outside of the rules; forming a Club as per the rules would only add a smidge of Administrator enforcibility.  But would people want Clubs that have restrictions without real benefits?

If Clubs as described above should be permitted without the proposal process being invoked, can the same be said for a Club that includes mechanisms for submitting Club Props?  A Club-Prop-making Club bestowes certain advantages on its members; should the main body of players have the chance to prevent its coming into existence?

If a Club is to form without the proposal process, should it be possible to form it with a single member, similar to a shell corporation?  Or should it be required that at least two players, who will become the Club's initial members, state their intent to form the Club on the public forum?

Should it be possible to create a Club that explicitly either affects the gamestate or carries with membership certain benefits that affect the gamestate?  Under what circumstances should such a Club be allowed to be created?  Standard majority procedure, or higher majority?  And should the number of members in it be limited to a certain amount, to keep it from being, "Let's all vote ourselves a raise!", or should there be a smallest number of members requirement, to make the Club somewhat closer to fair?

I think all of these questions should be considered and discussed; however, I'd suggest not trying to address more than one of these paragraphs in a single proposal.

						Glotmorf

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be legal? 
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:11:26 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my club's
> charter.
> 
 But they don't say that the club charter empowers you to take
otherwise illegal actions with the rest of the gamestate.

 WC.

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:44:52 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/23/02 at 4:36 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>The Voice rules TRUE on CFI 712... okay, this is gonna get twisty. Since
>it is determined that Glotmorf was not a member of the HOOP, the 20-point
>bonuses and such are unrolled. But then the HOOP existed when Baron von
>Skippy tried to join, so when e joined, the whole thing fired off (AGAIN).
>
>I don't much care what happens, somebody fix that damn thing. NOW.

One could argue that my not being able to join, by virtue of CFI 712, means no one else could have joined either...?

Does this need to be a CFI? :)

						Glotmorf

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: It's like Microsoft,  but different.
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:40:23 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wednesday 22 May 2002 22:02, you wrote:
> On 5/22/02 at 9:04 PM Alex Truelsen wrote:
> >Hm.  Well...first off, what is "overproduction" a quote from?  You can't
> >quote yourself any more, you know...:)
> >-Well, that puts a damper on it. It's quoted from my signature when I have
> >the Sushi. Ah well, that's easily enough fixed.-
> >
> >Second, in the Overseas Gnomes rule...You say people can purchase Gnomes
> >from the Gnome Account.  Is it that you mean people can purchase Gnomes,
> >and
> >the money used for the purchase goes into the Gnome Account?  Or do you
> >forsee the Gnome Account containing Gnomes?
> >-Well, I intended that former. Would there be a problem with the latter?-
> >
> >This is basically a Gnome Co-Op company, with profits being distributed to
> >members of the cooperative?
> >-*considers* Yes, just about. You want in? I'll note to people in general
> >that anyone interested in joining can feel free to ask, should this
> >pass...-
> >
> >						Glotmorf
>
> Sure.  Hold a seat on the board for me.  Thanks.

Err, me too.

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pseudocode action
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:41:16 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wednesday 22 May 2002 22:34, you wrote:
> Quoth Glotmorf,
>
> > Mr. A...I submit the following pseudocode-structured action:
> >
> > while ((the game continues) and (I haven't cancelled this action))
> > {
> > if ((Wonko's LOOP, in its current form, is implemented)
> > and
> > (it is legal for players to take points from the Gremlin Fund))
> > {
> > while (at least 20 points remain in the Gremlin Fund)
> > {
> > I join the LOOP.
> > I oust myself from the LOOP.
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Glotmorf
>
> Nice try, but the LOOP says you can't join unless you've never been a
> member. It's not actually a scam - it gives everyone 20 points and dies.

They why not just give everybody 20 points outright?

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:42:24 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:36:10PM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
> The nomination period for the Grid Ministry position has closed. What a
> shocker, there were no nominees ('cept me, who's nominated for pretty much
> everything by default). Yay me.

When I have some free time I'm going to write myself a script that would
make it easy to deal with the grid. Then I would nominate myself. Until
such a script exists, I intend to stay the heck away from the Grid
Ministry. Sorry Dave. :)

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:03:11 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Stupid HOOP...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/23/02 at 2:46 PM bd wrote:

>Create a proposal with the following text:
>{{
>__Exorcisim of much evil__
>
>Change the gamestate such that Proposal 676/1 never passed.
>}}

I think this is a violation of r204.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:16:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Stupid HOOP...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 23 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> >Change the gamestate such that Proposal 676/1 never passed.
>
> I think this is a violation of r204.

True. And a simple "repeal r631" would have largely the same effect, at
least from my perspective.

...dave

---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis, MO 63151
Vote NO on p692!  Please!  I'm overworked already...

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Revised proposal: Stupid HOOP...
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:35:17 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thursday 23 May 2002 14:46, you wrote:
Create a proposal with the following text:
{{
__Exorcisim of much evil__

Remove all members from the Holy Order Of Points, and disband it.

}}

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:25:26 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pseudocode action
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Wednesday 22 May 2002 22:34, you wrote:
>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>> 
>>> Mr. A...I submit the following pseudocode-structured action:
>>> 
>>> while ((the game continues) and (I haven't cancelled this action))
>>> {
>>> if ((Wonko's LOOP, in its current form, is implemented)
>>> and
>>> (it is legal for players to take points from the Gremlin Fund))
>>> {
>>> while (at least 20 points remain in the Gremlin Fund)
>>> {
>>> I join the LOOP.
>>> I oust myself from the LOOP.
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Glotmorf
>> 
>> Nice try, but the LOOP says you can't join unless you've never been a
>> member. It's not actually a scam - it gives everyone 20 points and dies.
> 
> They why not just give everybody 20 points outright?

I'm trying to point out the flaws inherent in the Charter Prop system. This
could have been far more nefarious - say, if I only allowed 1/3 of all
players to join, or restricted it to people playing football. But I didn't,
because I'm not trying to Scam the game, I'm just trying to make a point.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:30:59 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be
	legal? 
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan David Amery,

>> It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my club's
>> charter.
>> 
> But they don't say that the club charter empowers you to take
> otherwise illegal actions with the rest of the gamestate.

But it's not an illegal action - nowhere do the rules forbid it entirely.
The rules merely forbid me from taking that action if no rule lets me do it.
For a member of the LOOP, the LOOP Charter has the force of rule, as a rule
compels em to follow it. Therefore, the rules that ordinarily would forbid
me to take points from the Gremlin Fund don't, as they all defer to the rule
which gives the Charter power.

But hey, it's a Charter Prop. I don't particularly care whether or not it
passes, I'm just trying to make a point. Feel free to vote NO on it. I
would, but I'm Cursed :(

-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:47:18 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be legal?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:30:59PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
> Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
> 
> >> It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my club's
> >> charter.
> >> 
> > But they don't say that the club charter empowers you to take
> > otherwise illegal actions with the rest of the gamestate.
> 
> But it's not an illegal action - nowhere do the rules forbid it entirely.

The Gremlin Fund is a part of the gamestate, so the default case
applies.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:59:34 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Screw it.
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> Should it be acceptable that any group of players can form a Club they choose,
> with whatever rules they choose, without having to go through the proposal
> process, as long as said Club has no external effect on the gamestate?
> There'd be little in the way of inherent barrier for such a thing -- there's
> nothing that stops players from making clubs on their own outside of the
> rules; forming a Club as per the rules would only add a smidge of
> Administrator enforcibility.  But would people want Clubs that have
> restrictions without real benefits?

What would be the point? If it has no external effect on the gamestate,
don't make it part of the game. If all of Team Turquoise wants to get
together and play their own mini-game of Nomic, that's fine, but there's no
reason to use B Nomic to do it.

> If Clubs as described above should be permitted without the proposal process
> being invoked, can the same be said for a Club that includes mechanisms for
> submitting Club Props?  A Club-Prop-making Club bestowes certain advantages on
> its members; should the main body of players have the chance to prevent its
> coming into existence?

The Club-Prop thing could be dealt with easily simply by creating a method
of 'borrowing' bandwidth from other players - there's no need to establish
complicated Club rules to do this. But it ought to be possible simply to
loan people bandwidth, without any need for Club-Prop-making Clubs,
extraneous documents, or extra Ballot issues.

> If a Club is to form without the proposal process, should it be possible to
> form it with a single member, similar to a shell corporation?  Or should it be
> required that at least two players, who will become the Club's initial
> members, state their intent to form the Club on the public forum?

It should require at least two, if not three players. Otherwise, what's the
point? Except that we get to give ourselves bonuses for doing nothing...

> Should it be possible to create a Club that explicitly either affects the
> gamestate or carries with membership certain benefits that affect the
> gamestate?  Under what circumstances should such a Club be allowed to be
> created?  Standard majority procedure, or higher majority?  And should the
> number of members in it be limited to a certain amount, to keep it from being,
> "Let's all vote ourselves a raise!", or should there be a smallest number of
> members requirement, to make the Club somewhat closer to fair?

It should be possible to create Clubs that affect the Gamestate; such Clubs
ought to be created in the same manner as other Gamestate changes -
Proposals. Standard majority makes sense, as it will always be possible to
find a way around a highmaj requirement by clever writing normal proposals.
Such Clubs should always be required to have at least two or three members;
however, imposing an upper limit will, for most clubs, be ineffective - we
can make "Let's all vote ourselves a raise!" anyway, just by saying "The
following players each gain some points: <list of names>".

> I think all of these questions should be considered and discussed; however,
> I'd suggest not trying to address more than one of these paragraphs in a
> single proposal.

Why not? ;) 

-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 19:01:50 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be
	legal?
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:30:59PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
>> Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
>> 
>>>> It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my club's
>>>> charter.
>>>> 
>>> But they don't say that the club charter empowers you to take
>>> otherwise illegal actions with the rest of the gamestate.
>> 
>> But it's not an illegal action - nowhere do the rules forbid it entirely.
> 
> The Gremlin Fund is a part of the gamestate, so the default case
> applies.

But the default case defers to all other rules, and the Charter Prop rule
puts me within the Jurisdiction of the LOOP Charter, superceding the Default
Case's restrictions.

-- 
Wonko

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Thursday morning) 
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 00:36:21 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The nomination period for the Grid Ministry position has closed. What a
> shocker, there were no nominees ('cept me, who's nominated for pretty much
> everything by default). Yay me.

 Oops, I meant to nominate myself for that, but forgot due to being
too busy :(.

 WC.

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:15:18 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal Change
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan David Amery,

> Change prop. 713 to be:
> 
> {{
> __Club Clarification__
> 
> Add to rule 578 before the last para this text:
> 
> c) The mere fact that the rules of a Club may allow, or even force, a
> player to take an action does not make that action legal within the
> rules of B Nomic.  Thus, should the rules of a Club, say, allow a
> player to take twenty points from the Gremlin Fund, and the rules of B
> Nomic do not allow this, then the player cannot take this action - and
> is subject to the part of the rules of the Club that deals with such
> cases - if any such exist.
> }}

But then, the fact that the rules of many clubs will allow new members to
join will not make it legal fro em to do so.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:25:04 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Nomilogue #7 - Hu-HOO!
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> {{ _And the Children Shall Lead_
> 
> 
> Style ten
> B A C zip
> There is no drinking here
> Entropy fifty and charm is
> Sixty
> 
> In a
> Nweek you start here
> Or that you enter here
> You make a poetic prop or
> Get hugged
> 
> If you're
> In a DimShip
> Hugs are like ship gun shots
> If you've no ship, when hugged you lose
> Ten points
> 
> }}
> 

Given that the odds of someone randomly ending up at 50En, 60Ch, 10St, and
0BAC are negligible, and the Poetry/Gunshot drawbacks ought to keep anyone
from ever going there with a DimShip, won't this never come into play?

BTW, your prop doesn't count as Poetic Form, bcs it's got too many lines to
be a Cinquain. The Anthologies Prop. failed, remember?

-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 22:07:56 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be legal?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 07:01:50PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
> Quoth Rob Speer,
> 
> > On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:30:59PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
> >> Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
> >> 
> >>>> It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my club's
> >>>> charter.
> >>>> 
> >>> But they don't say that the club charter empowers you to take
> >>> otherwise illegal actions with the rest of the gamestate.
> >> 
> >> But it's not an illegal action - nowhere do the rules forbid it entirely.
> > 
> > The Gremlin Fund is a part of the gamestate, so the default case
> > applies.
> 
> But the default case defers to all other rules, and the Charter Prop rule
> puts me within the Jurisdiction of the LOOP Charter, superceding the Default
> Case's restrictions.

If that's the case, then Charters are far too powerful, and should
require 2/3 of the votes to be created, not 1/3. Or better yet, not
exist at all, since members of the club can change the Charter in such a
way that they can change the gamestate at will.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 22:54:38 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bandwidth Pooling
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/23/02 at 9:11 PM Wonko wrote:

>How's this for Bandwidth Pooling? They're similar to Clubs, but only meant
>to be use for Bandwidth loans.
>
>{{
>__Bandwidth Pools__
>
>A. Definition
>
>Bandwidth Collectives, or Pools, are groups of players sharing eir
>bandwidth. A Pool may be created by a group of three to six players, using
>the following procedure:
>
>1) One player issues, in a Public Forum, a Declaration of Intent to Pool,
>or
>a DIP. A DIP must include:
>    i) the name of the Pool to be created
>    ii) the names of all other players who are to be members of the Pool.
>    iii) a statement indicating whether the Pool is Open or Closed.
>2) Each player named to be part of the Pool affirms, within three ndays of
>the issuance of the DIP, their willingness to join the Pool. If any named
>player fails to do this, the DIP is void and the Pool is not created.
>
>B. Admittance and Rejection
>
>All Pools must have one of two leniencies Open or Closed. A Pool is assumed
>to be Open if it's leniency is unspecified.
>Any member of a Pool may remove emself from that Pool by declaring their
>intention to leave the Pool in a Public Forum. Such removals take effect at
>the beginning of the next Voting Period.
>
>B.1. Open Pools
>
>The following two paragraphs apply only to Open Pools:
>
>Any player who is not a member of a Pool may issue a Request for Admittance
>(RFA). If a majority of the members of the Pool deny the RFA within four
>ndays of its issuance, then the RFA is destroyed and has no effect.
>Otherwise, the player who issued the RFA becomes a member of the Pool.
>
>Any player who is a member of a Pool may issue a Writ of Exclusion (WOE)
>towards any other member of the same Pool. If a majority of the members of
>the Pool other than the target of the WOE deny the WOE within four ndays of
>its issuance, then the WOE is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the
>player who was targeted by the WOE ceases to be a member of the Pool. Such
>oustings take effect at the beginning of the next Voting Period.
>
>B.2. Closed Pools
>
>The following two paragraphs apply only to Closed Pools:
>
>Any player who is not a member of a Pool may issue a Request for Admittance
>(RFA). If any member of the Pool denies the RFA within four ndays of its
>issuance, then the RFA is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the
>player
>who issued the RFA becomes a member of the Pool.
>
>Any player who is a member of a Pool may issue a Writ of Exclusion (WOE)
>towards any other member of the same Pool. If any member of the Pool other
>than the target of the WOE denies the WOE within four ndays of its
>issuance,
>then the WOE is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the player who was
>targeted by the WOE ceases to be a member of the Pool. Such evictions take
>effect at the beginning of the next Voting Period.
>
>C. Pooled Proposals
>
>C.1. Definition
>
>A Pool may submit Pooled Proposals. Pooled proposals are proposals, but
>with
>the following properties:
>
>*They count as 1/(number of Players in the Pool) units of bandwidth towards
>each member's Bandwidth.
>
>*When a Pooled Proposal passes or fails, the dimensions of each member of
>the Pool shall change by (the amount the eir dimensions would have changed
>had e issued the proposal emself) / (the number of players in the Pool),
>rounded up.
>
>*When a Pooled Proposal is Shelved, it is immediately removed from the
>Ballot and destroyed.
>[[To deal with possible changes in the size of the Club between nweeks]]
>
>C.2. Issuance
>
>Any player in a Pool may issue a Pooled Proposal on behalf of eir Pool
>provided that each Pool member has enough Bandwidth that eir Bandwidth will
>not drop below zero.
>
>Before Voting begins, each Pooled Proposal that would be on the Ballot must
>be Ratified by its Pool, or it is destroyed. An Open Pool Ratifies a Pooled
>Proposal when at least half of its members, not counting the member who
>issued proposal, affirm it in a Public Forum. A Closed Pool Ratifies a
>Pooled Proposal when all of its members, not counting the member who issued
>the proposal, affirm it in a Public Forum.
>
>D. Destruction of Pools
>
>If at any time a Pool has fewer than two members, or more than two-thirds
>of
>all players are members, the Pool is immediately dissolved, and it and all
>Pooled Proposals, WOEs, and RFA's associated with it cease to exist.
>
>}}
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Ya know...you can create something like this via a Charter Prop right now...:)

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 22:56:59 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Back from the Grave...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/23/02 at 9:20 PM Wonko wrote:

>{{
>__The PIG v2.0__
>
>There exists a Gremlin called the Consuming Gremlin, or the Pig. At the
>beginning of each nweek, the following occurs:
>*If there are six or more Insta-Rules, the Pig becomes Active if it is in
>Hiding, or Eats a random Insta-Rule, destroying it, if it is already
>Active.
>*If there are four or fewer Insta-Rules, the Pig goes into Hiding.
>}}
>-- 
>Wonko

You'd prefer this over, say, an expiration date for insta-rules?  Cuz this could take the most recent as easily as the most ancient.  Is that a feature?

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:16:55 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Nomilogue #7 - Hu-HOO!
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/23/02 at 9:25 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> {{ _And the Children Shall Lead_
>> 
>> 
>> Style ten
>> B A C zip
>> There is no drinking here
>> Entropy fifty and charm is
>> Sixty
>> 
>> In a
>> Nweek you start here
>> Or that you enter here
>> You make a poetic prop or
>> Get hugged
>> 
>> If you're
>> In a DimShip
>> Hugs are like ship gun shots
>> If you've no ship, when hugged you lose
>> Ten points
>> 
>> }}
>> 
>
>Given that the odds of someone randomly ending up at 50En, 60Ch, 10St, and
>0BAC are negligible, and the Poetry/Gunshot drawbacks ought to keep anyone
>from ever going there with a DimShip, won't this never come into play?
>
>BTW, your prop doesn't count as Poetic Form, bcs it's got too many lines to
>be a Cinquain. The Anthologies Prop. failed, remember?
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Actually, I can think of a very particular instance in which it'd come into play.  I might demonstrate it soon.

As for the Poetic Form...guess I know what I'll do with my remaining half a prop...

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:19:17 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be
  legal?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/23/02 at 10:07 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 07:01:50PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
>> Quoth Rob Speer,
>> 
>> > On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:30:59PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
>> >> Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
>> >> 
>> >>>> It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my
>club's
>> >>>> charter.
>> >>>> 
>> >>> But they don't say that the club charter empowers you to take
>> >>> otherwise illegal actions with the rest of the gamestate.
>> >> 
>> >> But it's not an illegal action - nowhere do the rules forbid it
>entirely.
>> > 
>> > The Gremlin Fund is a part of the gamestate, so the default case
>> > applies.
>> 
>> But the default case defers to all other rules, and the Charter Prop rule
>> puts me within the Jurisdiction of the LOOP Charter, superceding the
>Default
>> Case's restrictions.
>
>If that's the case, then Charters are far too powerful, and should
>require 2/3 of the votes to be created, not 1/3. Or better yet, not
>exist at all, since members of the club can change the Charter in such a
>way that they can change the gamestate at will.
>-- 
>Rob Speer

There's no existing mechanism for changing a charter prop, other than, I suppose, a proposal.  So if a club of a few people is trying to change its club to its own advantage, I somehow doubt more than half the players would agree.

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 00:52:58 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Rethinking bandwidth pools
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/23/02 at 9:11 PM Wonko wrote:

>How's this for Bandwidth Pooling? They're similar to Clubs, but only meant
>to be use for Bandwidth loans.
>
>{{
>__Bandwidth Pools__
>
>A. Definition
>
>Bandwidth Collectives, or Pools, are groups of players sharing eir
>bandwidth. A Pool may be created by a group of three to six players, using
>the following procedure:
>
>1) One player issues, in a Public Forum, a Declaration of Intent to Pool,
>or
>a DIP. A DIP must include:
>    i) the name of the Pool to be created
>    ii) the names of all other players who are to be members of the Pool.
>    iii) a statement indicating whether the Pool is Open or Closed.
>2) Each player named to be part of the Pool affirms, within three ndays of
>the issuance of the DIP, their willingness to join the Pool. If any named
>player fails to do this, the DIP is void and the Pool is not created.
>
>B. Admittance and Rejection
>
>All Pools must have one of two leniencies Open or Closed. A Pool is assumed
>to be Open if it's leniency is unspecified.
>Any member of a Pool may remove emself from that Pool by declaring their
>intention to leave the Pool in a Public Forum. Such removals take effect at
>the beginning of the next Voting Period.
>
>B.1. Open Pools
>
>The following two paragraphs apply only to Open Pools:
>
>Any player who is not a member of a Pool may issue a Request for Admittance
>(RFA). If a majority of the members of the Pool deny the RFA within four
>ndays of its issuance, then the RFA is destroyed and has no effect.
>Otherwise, the player who issued the RFA becomes a member of the Pool.
>
>Any player who is a member of a Pool may issue a Writ of Exclusion (WOE)
>towards any other member of the same Pool. If a majority of the members of
>the Pool other than the target of the WOE deny the WOE within four ndays of
>its issuance, then the WOE is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the
>player who was targeted by the WOE ceases to be a member of the Pool. Such
>oustings take effect at the beginning of the next Voting Period.
>
>B.2. Closed Pools
>
>The following two paragraphs apply only to Closed Pools:
>
>Any player who is not a member of a Pool may issue a Request for Admittance
>(RFA). If any member of the Pool denies the RFA within four ndays of its
>issuance, then the RFA is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the
>player
>who issued the RFA becomes a member of the Pool.
>
>Any player who is a member of a Pool may issue a Writ of Exclusion (WOE)
>towards any other member of the same Pool. If any member of the Pool other
>than the target of the WOE denies the WOE within four ndays of its
>issuance,
>then the WOE is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the player who was
>targeted by the WOE ceases to be a member of the Pool. Such evictions take
>effect at the beginning of the next Voting Period.
>
>C. Pooled Proposals
>
>C.1. Definition
>
>A Pool may submit Pooled Proposals. Pooled proposals are proposals, but
>with
>the following properties:
>
>*They count as 1/(number of Players in the Pool) units of bandwidth towards
>each member's Bandwidth.
>
>*When a Pooled Proposal passes or fails, the dimensions of each member of
>the Pool shall change by (the amount the eir dimensions would have changed
>had e issued the proposal emself) / (the number of players in the Pool),
>rounded up.
>
>*When a Pooled Proposal is Shelved, it is immediately removed from the
>Ballot and destroyed.
>[[To deal with possible changes in the size of the Club between nweeks]]
>
>C.2. Issuance
>
>Any player in a Pool may issue a Pooled Proposal on behalf of eir Pool
>provided that each Pool member has enough Bandwidth that eir Bandwidth will
>not drop below zero.
>
>Before Voting begins, each Pooled Proposal that would be on the Ballot must
>be Ratified by its Pool, or it is destroyed. An Open Pool Ratifies a Pooled
>Proposal when at least half of its members, not counting the member who
>issued proposal, affirm it in a Public Forum. A Closed Pool Ratifies a
>Pooled Proposal when all of its members, not counting the member who issued
>the proposal, affirm it in a Public Forum.
>
>D. Destruction of Pools
>
>If at any time a Pool has fewer than two members, or more than two-thirds
>of
>all players are members, the Pool is immediately dissolved, and it and all
>Pooled Proposals, WOEs, and RFA's associated with it cease to exist.
>
>}}
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Okay...I gave it some more thought, and I think we're trying to accomplish the same thing here.  You want there to be a means to pool bandwidth without it being tied to the proposal process, because you see the proposal process as having the means to damage the ruleset and gamestate.  I thought I'd achieved it with charter props by isolating them from actual proposals and the power they contain, but you want to make sure accidents don't happen.

The only problem I have with this is that, hypothetically speaking, if there was someone like, oh, I don't know, you, who, for whatever reason, perhaps because, just off the top of my head, you were closer to winning than I was and I didn't want you to have that much more of an advantage if I could help it, I wanted to be able to do something to prevent you from setting up an organization with proposal-making capability.  Perhaps, dare I say, everyone but you and your potential draftee felt this way, and therefore would vote against the formation of the organization if they were able to do so.

This is where I'm coming from.  Yes, it's another tax-the-rich scheme, which may in fact be used against me some day.  Personally I feel games are supposed to get harder as one is more successful in them.  So if, for some reason, most of the players would like to keep a particular player, or a particular group of players, from pooling resources, I think there should be a mechanism available, even if it's not an easy one to use.

Aside from that...

I'd like to see Bandwidth Pools made an object under the Society class, to keep Societies relatively consolidated, and because there's mechanisms in place for Societies to submit proposals.  This'll just be a means of setting up a Society without a proposal.

I think they should be called Proposal Pools rather than Bandwidth Pools, because bandwidth isn't the only thing the members are sharing.  Some of those other things are missing from your Bandwidth Pools.

I'd like to see the means of joining and ousting, plus whatever other internal rules desired, as a lower-down layer, either being able to specify them all at once and establishing a charter, or setting up subclasses of Proposal Pools that can be used to create multiple customized Societies.

Do you really want to go through with this now?  Or perhaps split the points on a class-structured Society def?  Another Less-is-More attempt.

						Glotmorf

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: "B Nomic Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: B Nomic Bulletin
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 01:48:53 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I decided to do this for my own benefit, so that I could at least *begin*
to grok what the hell is going on.

First edition.  Comments welcome.  Corrections /really/ welcome.

THE B NOMIC BULLETIN
Friday, May 24, 2002
nweek 17 - by Murphy

PROPOSALS

__And the Children Shall Lead__ - Proposal 723 by Glotmorf
  The Barney Realm is (Style 10, BAC 0, Entropy 50, Charm 60).
  A player who is in the Barney Realm for any part of an nweek must make a
    poetic proposal during that nweek, or get hugged (equivalent to a gun shot
    if you have a DimShip, otherwise you lose 10 points).

__Bandwidth Pools__ - Proposal 731 by Wonko
  Three to six players may pool their proposal bandwidth, in either an Open
    (default) or Closed fashion.  All named players must consent to the
    Declaration of Intent to Pool (DIP) within three ndays, or the Pool fails.
  Open Pools are subject to a Request for Admittance (RFA), which is valid
    unless a majority of members deny it within four ndays.
  A member may issue a Writ of Exclusion (WOE) towards another member; the Writ
    is valid unless a majority of members (other than the target) deny it
    within four ndays.
  For Closed Pools, a RFA may be denied by a single member, and a WOE may be
    denied by a single member (other than the target).
  Any member of a Pool may issue a Pooled Proposal on behalf of the Pool, as
    long as each Pool member has enough Bandwidth to contribute evenly.
  Before Voting begins, each Pooled Proposal must be Ratified by at least half
    of the members (other than the author) for Open Pools, or all of the
    members (other than the author) for Closed Pools.
  Pooled Proposals that would be Shelved are destroyed instead.
  A Pool with less than two members, or more than two-thirds of all players as
    members, is immediately dissolved, along with its Pooled Proposals.

__Boxes__ - Proposal 733 by Wonko
  Ten random Bonus Boxes appear at random vacant locations.
  Each player gains 5 points.

__Club Clarification__ - Proposal 713/1 by Wild Card
  An action is not legal just because the rules of a Club permit or require it.
  Proposal 713/0, __Save Our Limbs__, was Completely Different.

__Definitions__ - Proposal 730 by Wonko
  A player is a Turing entity who consents to be a player and obey the rules.
  A being is a player or the Administrator.
  A Proposing Entity (PE) is an entity able to issue a Proposal.

__Delegation Means Delegation__ - Proposal 709 by Glotmorf
  Required duties may be performed on a player's behalf by:
    /0 a script or web page.
    /1 a software system.
  It may also be a public forum.

__Healthy Competition__ - (non-Charter) Proposal 695/1 by Baron von Skippy
  von Skippy Overproduction, Inc. (vSOI) is created.
  Players may join vSOI by consent of the CEO, or unanimous consent of all
    non-CEO members (there must be more than two).
  Players may leave vSOI by announcement, and may be ousted by the CEO, or by
    unanimous consent of all non-CEO members.
  If the CEO is ousted, then the longest-term member becomes CEO.
  If the CEO is Sacked by the members, then e becomes a non-CEO member, and the
    first Sacker becomes CEO.  If an intended Sacking is not unanimous within
    one nweek, then the first Sacker is ousted.
  vSOI may not make proposals.
  The CEO of vSOI may not be the Prez of M-Tek; if e is, then e becomes a
    non-CEO member, and the longest-term member becomes CEO.
  Baron von Skippy is the initial CEO.
  Members of vSOI may purchase a random Gnome for 2 points, or a specific Gnome
    for 4 points, from the Gnome Account.  Non-members pay double.
  At the end of each nweek, if the Gnome Account has more than 100 points, then
    they are evenly distributed among all members of vSOI (remainder remains in
    the Gnome Account).
  At the start of each nweek, each member of vSOI gets a random Gnome.

__interesting?__ - Proposal 720 by Naath
  A Disinterested player may cease being Disinterested by announcement.

__Jumping through HOOPs__ - Charter Proposal 717 by Wonko
  The Lovely Order of Points (LOOP) is created, with Wonko as a member.
  A player by join the LOOP by announcement, but only once.
  A player may oust a member of the LOOP by giving em 20 points from the
    Gremlin Fund.

__Less is More -- Grems.__ - Proposal 714 by Glotmorf
  All Gremlin definitions are moved into a single Rule, and the definition of
    Gremlin Numbers into a second Rule.
  /1 Incorporates the effect of __Save Our Limbs__.

__LOGAS cleanup__ - Proposal 725 by bd
  Remove a couple of redundant words from the LOGAS.

__Neatening up Gnomes__ - Proposal 715 by Wonko
  All Gnome definitions are moved into a single Rule.
  Rule 548 (Sheep Gnomes) - more accurately, the text copied from it - stops
    creating new Sheep.
  /1 Some typo/grammar fixes; Earth Gnomes may be squeezed at a non-Brook,
       turning it into Earth; dead Beer Gnomes no longer become Beer Cans;
       Sheep are only created if none exist.

__Now you see me, now you don't!__ - Proposal 726 by The Voice
  Bonus Boxes of type Wormhole transport their finder to a square adjacent to
    another random Bonus Box.

__Nweek 16 Hole Plugs__ - Proposal 722 by Glotmorf
  Various typo/grammar fixes.
  /1 The requirement for Club members to obey its rules is no longer removed,
       but is made subservient to obeying the Rules of the Game.

__Repeat as Needed__ - Club Proposal 734 by Glotmorf
  Limericks and cinquains may have multiple verses in the specified forms.

__Save Our Limbs__ - Proposal 713/0 by Wild Card
  A player who borrows from Luigi during one nweek does not get a Broken Limb
    till the end of the following nweek.
  Proposal 713/1, __Club Clarification__, is Completely Different.

__Sing When You're Winning__ - Proposal 710 by dave
  Upon a Win:
    * All dimensions are reset to zero, not just scores.
    * The Winner gets a point of Respect.
    * Rule 440 takes effect, as if Entropy had gotten big.
    * The Clock is turned off for three wdays.
  A player Wins if e has Score >= 1000 and Charm > 0 and Activity > 0.
  Rule 548 (Sheep Gnomes) stops creating new Sheep.

__Slime, Inflatable Women, etc.__ - Proposal 718 by Wonko
  Bonus Boxes of type Frog Juice turn their finder into a toad for an nweek.
  Bonus Boxes of type Inflatable Siren teleport their finder to a random
    legal consecutive square, and then produce a Big Rock with a Siren at
    their finder's previous location.
  Bonus Boxes of type Gnome-in-a-Box give their finder two Gnomes of a single
    random type.

__Stand Still!__ - Proposal 735 by Murphy
  CFIs are judged based on their truth/falsity at time of Call, not Judgement.

__Stupid HOOP...__ - Proposal 729 by bd - Rescinded if Wonko left the Holy
    Order of Points and thus disbanded it
  /0 Proposal 676/1 is declared to have not passed.
  /1 Remove all members from the Holy Order of Points, and disband it.

__The Casino__ - Proposal 724 by bd
  The Casino is located at (10, 12).
  The Casino becomes Closed whenever the Gremlin Fund drops below 150 points,
    and Open whenver it rises above 250 points.
  Once per nday, a player at the Casino may bet any even number of points from
    10 to 50 (but not exceeding what they have).  Those points go to the
    Gremlin Fund.  2d6 is rolled for the player and the Casino; if the player
    rolls higher, e gets his bet back, plus half.

__The PIG v2.0__ - Proposal 732 by Wonko
  The Consuming Gremlin (Pig) exists.
  At the beginning of each nweek:
    If there are six or more Insta-Rules:
      If in Hiding, it becomes Active.
      If Active, it Eats a random Insta-Rule, destroying it.
    If there are four or fewer Insta-Rules:
      It goes into Hiding.

__The Second Mouse Gets The Cheese__ - Proposal 716 by Rob
  All players who explicitly joined the Holy Order of Points, or were added to
    it by name, lose 30 points.  All other players gain 30 points.  (Rob gains
    30 points minus eir bonus for this proposal being adopted.)

__There's No Style in Deficit Spending__ - Club Proposal 711 by M-Tek
  A player may not buy a Style Attribute if it would make eir Style negative.

__Time Freeze, my butt__ - Proposal 707 by The Voice
  Players may act while the Clock is off.
  When the Clock turns back on, the actions take effect:
    /0 in reverse order.
    /1 in forward order.

__Violent green.__ - Proposal 719 by uin
  A player may become Disinterested by announcement.  E is removed from:
    * The Grid, and Football.
    * Groups.
    * Receiving the Sushi, the Scarf, the Token of Proposals, or the Immunity
        Idol (but e is treated as if e had the Idol).
    * Kicks in the Ass, in either direction.
    * E has a score, charm, and entropy of 0.
  uin becomes Disinterested.

RECTIFICATION

5/20  Rule 127 is rectified, removing a spurious "randomly".

CALLS FOR INQUIRY

CFI 620     5/18  Rescinded by Glotmorf, costing 1 point

CFI 665     "Wonko's props 650, 651, 652, and 653 did not exist, and should
[FALSE]      not have been put into effect."
            5/20  Judged FALSE by Iain
            Caller's argument (summary):  Wonko had the Pink Scarf, and
              (because e was a Drone) was required to *buzz* and *crackle*
              randomly, but these proposals contained no such interference.
            Judge's refutation (summary):  Wonko may have randomly selected
              zero as the number of times to *buzz* and *crackle*; it cannot
              be proven otherwise.

CFI 688     5/20  Appealed by The Reality Police, going to The Upper House
Appealed    5/20  The Reality Police, Glotmorf, Congenital Optimist chosen
                    (even though Congenital Optimist is On Leave)
            5/21  Ruled FALSE by Glotmorf
            Glotmorf's argument (summary):  Champagne is an alcoholic beverage,
              so its creation is regulated by Rule 18, so it is not implicitly
              created when a player claims to drink it.

CFJ 690     "There is no club called M-Tek."
[FALSE]     5/22  Judged FALSE by bd
            Caller's argument (summary):  Charter Proposals are not Proposals,
              and thus do not take effect, even if adopted.
            Judge's refutation (summary):  Charter Proposals are Proposals, and
              take effect if adopted.  No rule says otherwise.

CFI 708     "Baron von Skippy, bd, Naath, The Reality Police and The Voice
[TRUE]       did not become members of the Holy Order of Points as a result
Appealed     of voting for Proposal 676.  Events resulting from their becoming
             members do not occur.  The Holy Order of Points still exists,
             with Wonko as its sole member."
            5/17  Called by Glotmorf
            5/17  Assigned to Rob
            5/18  Judged TRUE by Rob
            5/20  Appealed by Wonko, going to The Upper House
            5/20  Rob, Glotmorf, The Voice chosen
            5/20  dave adjusts points of Wonko, Baron von Skippy, bd, Naath,
                    The Reality Police, and The Voice.
            5/21  Sustained by Glotmorf
            Caller's argument (summary):  Rule 155 (No kickbacks) caused
              Proposal 676 to be partly ineffective.
            Wonko's counterargument (summary):  In CFI 254, Bean ruled that an
              effect of a rule is not an effect of the proposal that created
              that rule.
            Glotmorf's counter-counterargument (summary):  Since CFI 254, Rule
              155 has been amended to cover effects of a rule created by a
              proposal.

CFI 712     "Glotmorf can't join the Holy order of Points.  There's nothing
[TRUE]       in the club prop that says how you can join it, other than the
Appealed     (illgal) method of joining by voting for it."
            5/18  Called by Naath
            5/20  Assigned to The Voice
            5/21  Judged TRUE by The Voice
            5/24  Appealed by Murphy
            Murphy's counterargument (summary):  New players may join it by
              declaration.

CFI 721     "Wonko is the sole member of the Holy Order of Points."
[TRUE]      5/21  Called by The Voice
            Caller's argument (summary):  Per CFI 712, the only ways to join it
              are those specified by Proposal 676:  be Wonko (valid) or vote
              for Proposal 676 (invalid, Rule 155).
            Judge's argument (summary):  Proposal 676 also allows new players
              to join by declaration, but none of the players who have tried to
              do so are new.

CFJ 727     "As of the time this CFI was issued, Iain was not and had never
Pending      been a member of M-Tek."
            5/22  Called by Wonko
            Caller's argument (summary):  The only way to join M-Tek is the
              method outlined in its Charter, which only affects players who
              are already members.

CFJ 728     "It is not legal for any player who was in the game as of the
Pending      enactment of the HOoP to join or to have joined the HOoP;
             therefore, the HOoP currently has Wonko as its sole member, and
             only players who join the game after the enactment of the HOoP
             can join the HOoP."
            5/23  Called by Glotmorf
            Caller's argument (summary):  The only ways to join the HOoP are
              those mentioned in Proposal 676:  be Wonko, vote for Proposal 676
              (ineffective due to Rule 155), or be a new player and declare
              joining (all claimed joiners besides Wonko are non-new).

MINISTRIES

5/17  Nominations begin for Minister of the Ordinance Survey, lasting 5 ndays.

      Glotmorf is Insta-Minister.

5/23  Nominations end for Grid Ministry.  No nominees, except the Administrator
        by default.

INSTA-RULES

5/20  Rob makes {{ It is illegal to remain in grid location (10, 8). }}

      Wild Card makes {{ It is legal to enter grid location (2, 8). }}

5/22  The Voice makes {{ It is legal to enter grid location (2, 7). }}

5/23  Glotmorf makes {{ It is illegal to enter grid location (20, 11). }}

MOVEMENT

5/18  Naath moves to (13,9).

      Wild Card moves to (2, 8) and takes the Football.

5/22  The Voice attempts to move to (2, 7) and do several other Grid things,
        but it all fails because:
          a) Eir Insta-Rule does not take effect till the end of the nweek.
          b) Eir Insta-Rule does not make it possible to move to (2, 7) from
               any location - merely permissible.  (It is permissible, but not
               possible, for a man to have babies.)

5/23  Curt and Rod move on nday 6.  Two Radar Blips are added.

IN OTHER NEWS

5/17  Glotmorf transfers the Pink Scarf to The Reality Police.

      Glotmorf attempts to join the Holy Order of Points, but is unsuccessful
        (see CFIs 712/721/728).

      Murphy becomes a player, and sets eir gender to male.

5/20  Wild Card launches eir DimShip.

      bd, The Voice, and Wild Card join the Holy Order of Points (if possible,
        see CFIs 712/721/728).

      Rob pays 21 points to the Witch Gremlin to curse Wonko.

5/21  uin, The Reality Police, and Baron von Skippy join the Holy Order of
        Points (if possible, see CFIs 712/721/728).  If Glotmorf joined, then
        The Reality Police triggers its point-giving and self-dissolution, and
        Baron von Skippy fails to join.  If Glotmorf failed to join, but
        everyone else joined, then Baron von Skippy triggers it.

      uin launches eir DimShip.

      uin spends 60 points on 12 beers.

      bd leaves the Holy Order of Points (if possible), then rescinds it.

      Glotmorf claims to take a delayed action of joining the Lovely Order of
        Points and then ousting emself from it, to take effect as soon as e can
        get Proposal 717's bonus by doing so.  This is apparently unsuccessful.

      The Voice removes emself from The Upper House.

5/22  Congenital Optimist comes Off Leave, then forfeits.

      Wonko claims to take a delayed action of evicting emself from the Holy
        Order of Points and voting against the Lovely Order of Points, if
        Proposal 716 fails and e has not rescinded the action.

5/23  The Reality Police has bought a DimShip and a twelve-pack of Beer.

      Scoff! is Garbage-Collected for being On Leave too long.

      Baron von Skippy tries to set eir DimShip's ballast, but sends it to the
        discussion list, so it is ineffective.

      Wonko evicts emself from the Holy Order of Points, disbanding it (if no
        other players joined, see CFIs 712/721/728).

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:45:11 +0100 (BST)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: B Nomic Discussion <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: B Nomic Bulletin
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>I decided to do this for my own benefit, so that I could at least
>*begin*
>to grok what the hell is going on.
>First edition.  Comments welcome.  Corrections /really/ welcome.
>
>THE B NOMIC BULLETIN
>Friday, May 24, 2002

Wonderfull! 

cheers,
Iain

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:08:36 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: B Nomic Bulletin
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>      uin launches eir DimShip.
>
>       uin spends 60 points on 12 beers.
>
> 5/23  The Reality Police has bought a DimShip and a twelve-pack of Beer.
>

-1, redundant.

uin =~ The Reality Police,
The Style Police.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:06:56 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be
	legal?
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> If that's the case, then Charters are far too powerful, and should
> require 2/3 of the votes to be created, not 1/3. Or better yet, not
> exist at all, since members of the club can change the Charter in such a
> way that they can change the gamestate at will.

That's sort of the point I've been trying to make...
-- 
Wonko

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:07:25 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Bandwidth Pooling
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/23/02 at 9:11 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> How's this for Bandwidth Pooling? They're similar to Clubs, but only meant
>> to be use for Bandwidth loans.
>> 
>> {{
>> __Bandwidth Pools__
>> 
>> A. Definition
>> 
>> Bandwidth Collectives, or Pools, are groups of players sharing eir
>> bandwidth. A Pool may be created by a group of three to six players, using
>> the following procedure:
>> 
>> 1) One player issues, in a Public Forum, a Declaration of Intent to Pool,
>> or
>> a DIP. A DIP must include:
>> i) the name of the Pool to be created
>> ii) the names of all other players who are to be members of the Pool.
>> iii) a statement indicating whether the Pool is Open or Closed.
>> 2) Each player named to be part of the Pool affirms, within three ndays of
>> the issuance of the DIP, their willingness to join the Pool. If any named
>> player fails to do this, the DIP is void and the Pool is not created.
>> 
>> B. Admittance and Rejection
>> 
>> All Pools must have one of two leniencies Open or Closed. A Pool is assumed
>> to be Open if it's leniency is unspecified.
>> Any member of a Pool may remove emself from that Pool by declaring their
>> intention to leave the Pool in a Public Forum. Such removals take effect at
>> the beginning of the next Voting Period.
>> 
>> B.1. Open Pools
>> 
>> The following two paragraphs apply only to Open Pools:
>> 
>> Any player who is not a member of a Pool may issue a Request for Admittance
>> (RFA). If a majority of the members of the Pool deny the RFA within four
>> ndays of its issuance, then the RFA is destroyed and has no effect.
>> Otherwise, the player who issued the RFA becomes a member of the Pool.
>> 
>> Any player who is a member of a Pool may issue a Writ of Exclusion (WOE)
>> towards any other member of the same Pool. If a majority of the members of
>> the Pool other than the target of the WOE deny the WOE within four ndays of
>> its issuance, then the WOE is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the
>> player who was targeted by the WOE ceases to be a member of the Pool. Such
>> oustings take effect at the beginning of the next Voting Period.
>> 
>> B.2. Closed Pools
>> 
>> The following two paragraphs apply only to Closed Pools:
>> 
>> Any player who is not a member of a Pool may issue a Request for Admittance
>> (RFA). If any member of the Pool denies the RFA within four ndays of its
>> issuance, then the RFA is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the
>> player
>> who issued the RFA becomes a member of the Pool.
>> 
>> Any player who is a member of a Pool may issue a Writ of Exclusion (WOE)
>> towards any other member of the same Pool. If any member of the Pool other
>> than the target of the WOE denies the WOE within four ndays of its
>> issuance,
>> then the WOE is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the player who was
>> targeted by the WOE ceases to be a member of the Pool. Such evictions take
>> effect at the beginning of the next Voting Period.
>> 
>> C. Pooled Proposals
>> 
>> C.1. Definition
>> 
>> A Pool may submit Pooled Proposals. Pooled proposals are proposals, but
>> with
>> the following properties:
>> 
>> *They count as 1/(number of Players in the Pool) units of bandwidth towards
>> each member's Bandwidth.
>> 
>> *When a Pooled Proposal passes or fails, the dimensions of each member of
>> the Pool shall change by (the amount the eir dimensions would have changed
>> had e issued the proposal emself) / (the number of players in the Pool),
>> rounded up.
>> 
>> *When a Pooled Proposal is Shelved, it is immediately removed from the
>> Ballot and destroyed.
>> [[To deal with possible changes in the size of the Club between nweeks]]
>> 
>> C.2. Issuance
>> 
>> Any player in a Pool may issue a Pooled Proposal on behalf of eir Pool
>> provided that each Pool member has enough Bandwidth that eir Bandwidth will
>> not drop below zero.
>> 
>> Before Voting begins, each Pooled Proposal that would be on the Ballot must
>> be Ratified by its Pool, or it is destroyed. An Open Pool Ratifies a Pooled
>> Proposal when at least half of its members, not counting the member who
>> issued proposal, affirm it in a Public Forum. A Closed Pool Ratifies a
>> Pooled Proposal when all of its members, not counting the member who issued
>> the proposal, affirm it in a Public Forum.
>> 
>> D. Destruction of Pools
>> 
>> If at any time a Pool has fewer than two members, or more than two-thirds
>> of
>> all players are members, the Pool is immediately dissolved, and it and all
>> Pooled Proposals, WOEs, and RFA's associated with it cease to exist.
>> 
>> }}
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> Ya know...you can create something like this via a Charter Prop right now...:)
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 
Yes, but Charter Props are inherently flawed. I want this to be a rule, not
a Charter.
-- 
Wonko

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:43:58 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: *sigh*
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/24/02 at 9:05 AM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Naath Thabana,
>
>> Statement: As of the time this CFI was issued, Iain
>> was not and had never been a member of M-Tek.
>> 
>> Defendant: Glotmorf
>> 
>> Analysis: 
>> 
>> Players may not change the gamestate unless a rule
>> explicitly permits them to. Iain's joining of M-Tek
>> was a change to the gamestate. Therefore, Iain could
>> not have joined M-Tek unless a rule permitted em to.
>> However, no rule permitted em to join.
>> 
>> Although M-Tek's Charter outlines methods for the
>> addition of players to M-Tek, the Charter only has the
>> force of rule for members of the club. Thus, unless
>> one is already a member of the club, one cannot join
>> the club. 
>> 
>> Judgement: 
>> False, Ian is a member of M-Tek.
>> 
>> Why:
>> Because he joined in the way prescribed by the M-Tek
>> charter.  There is no other rule saying that Ian may
>> *not* join M-Tek in this way
>
>I appeal this CFJ on the grounds that there is a rule saying that Iain may
>not join M-Tek in this way. It's the Default Case, which says that players
>may not change the gamestate.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

The Default Case, Rule 393, says it defers to all other rules.

M-Tek was created via a Charter Prop.

Rule 631 says Charter Props create Clubs.

Rule 578 says a Club is a Society.

Rule 578 says entities may be members of Societies.

Iain, by accepting my invitation, declared emself to be a member of M-Tek.

Rule 631 says members of a Club must obey the rules stated in the Club's Charter.

The Club Charter for M-Tek dictates the circumstances whereby a person can become a member.

The circumstances under which Iain declared emself a member is consistent with the circumstances outlined in the M-Tek Club Charter.

Therefore, Iain is obeying the rules in the M-Tek Club Charter that determine whether or not e is a member.

Since Rule 393 defers to all other rules, it defers to Rules 578 and 631, in conjunction with the M-Tek Charter.

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 21:02:24 +0100 (BST)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday afternoon)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> CFI 737 is assigned to Iain.

Bugger. I suppose its bad form to wait 7 ndays to be recussed?
I will have to think about this...

cheers,
Iain

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:43:32 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 > Although M-Tek's Charter outlines methods for the
> addition of players to M-Tek, the Charter only has the
> force of rule for members of the club. Thus, unless
> one is already a member of the club, one cannot join
> the club. 

 Rule 631/1 certainly *implies* that one can join Clubs using the
method specified. 

 Hmm, another clarification needed, I think.

 WC.

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Death to Proosals
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:12:17 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 24 May 2002 8:07 am, you wrote:
> <proosal>

Create a proposal with the following text:
{{
__Death to Proosals__

Add 'using the word proosal instead of the word proposal when you are limited 
to less than 3 syllables' to the LOGAS
}}

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: a request
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:14:50 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 24 May 2002 2:52 pm, you wrote:
> nomic.net has been having problems delivering mail to a few other domains
> recently, and (with the help of one of the players' postmasters) I've
> determined that the problem is one with my secondary DNS.
>
> Since the problem is basically uncorrectable, due to circumstances that my
> secondary cannot control, it seems that nomic.net is now in need of a new
> secondary DNS. I would use the one that my registrar provides, but I don't
> have just one registrar (I host two other domains), and I'd like to keep
> the number of entities I have to deal with when messing with DNS to a
> minimum.
>
> So, the request: does anyone on the list run eir own DNS? If so, would you
> be willing to be a secondary for my three domains? (I'd be willing to
> reciprocate, in that case.)

How much bandwith would it take? I might be able to do it, but I've never done 
it before...

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pestilence
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:16:39 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 24 May 2002 8:14 pm, you wrote:
>  I set my DimShip ball. to: 5 Activ., 75 Charm
>
>  I set my DimShip bouy. to: 20 Score, 60 Entrop.

Ballast decreases a dimension, and boutance increases, right?

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pestilence 
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 01:19:17 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> On Friday 24 May 2002 8:14 pm, you wrote:
> >  I set my DimShip ball. to: 5 Activ., 75 Charm
> >
> >  I set my DimShip bouy. to: 20 Score, 60 Entrop.
> 
> Ballast decreases a dimension, and boutance increases, right?

 Yup :)

 WC.

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal: Our physical shells are rotting.
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 21:37:27 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Oh, come now. Microsoft sucks, everyone knows this. So does Macintosh, and 
AOL & co. They all do. So why defend only Microsoft?

                                            BvS
                                      Die-hard PC user

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 23:12:11 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/24/02 at 9:05 AM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Naath Thabana,
>> 
>>> Statement: As of the time this CFI was issued, Iain
>>> was not and had never been a member of M-Tek.
>>> 
>>> Defendant: Glotmorf
>>> 
>>> Analysis:
>>> 
>>> Players may not change the gamestate unless a rule
>>> explicitly permits them to. Iain's joining of M-Tek
>>> was a change to the gamestate. Therefore, Iain could
>>> not have joined M-Tek unless a rule permitted em to.
>>> However, no rule permitted em to join.
>>> 
>>> Although M-Tek's Charter outlines methods for the
>>> addition of players to M-Tek, the Charter only has the
>>> force of rule for members of the club. Thus, unless
>>> one is already a member of the club, one cannot join
>>> the club.
>>> 
>>> Judgement:
>>> False, Ian is a member of M-Tek.
>>> 
>>> Why:
>>> Because he joined in the way prescribed by the M-Tek
>>> charter.  There is no other rule saying that Ian may
>>> *not* join M-Tek in this way
>> 
>> I appeal this CFJ on the grounds that there is a rule saying that Iain may
>> not join M-Tek in this way. It's the Default Case, which says that players
>> may not change the gamestate.
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> As a member of the Upper House, I rule FALSE on CFI 727.
> 
> For analysis I reiterate an earlier statement regarding this CFI:
> 
> The Default Case, Rule 393, says it defers to all other rules.
> 
> M-Tek was created via a Charter Prop.
> 
> Rule 631 says Charter Props create Clubs.
> 
> Rule 578 says a Club is a Society.
> 
> Rule 578 says entities may be members of Societies.
> 
> Iain, by accepting my invitation, declared emself to be a member of M-Tek.
> 
> Rule 631 says members of a Club must obey the rules stated in the Club's
> Charter.
> 
> The Club Charter for M-Tek dictates the circumstances whereby a person can
> become a member.
> 
> The circumstances under which Iain declared emself a member is consistent with
> the circumstances outlined in the M-Tek Club Charter.
> 
> Therefore, Iain is obeying the rules in the M-Tek Club Charter that determine
> whether or not e is a member.
> 
> Since Rule 393 defers to all other rules, it defers to Rules 578 and 631, in
> conjunction with the M-Tek Charter.

Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from the
Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?

<mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>

-- 
Wonko

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 23:14:31 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 24 May 2002 11:12 pm, you wrote:
> Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from the
> Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?
>
> <mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>

And when my insta-rule goes thru, I'll be 2 gnomes richer...

Serves you right :)

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 23:20:51 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Friday 24 May 2002 11:12 pm, you wrote:
>> Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from the
>> Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?
>> 
>> <mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>
> 
> And when my insta-rule goes thru, I'll be 2 gnomes richer...
> 
> Serves you right :)

Hmmm... Perhaps an error has been made in the Insta-Rule process... I must
meditate on this...

-- 
Wonko
Who already misses eir Gnomes :(

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 23:28:24 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 24 May 2002 11:24 pm, you wrote:
> Quoth bd,
>
> > On Friday 24 May 2002 11:12 pm, you wrote:
> >> Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from
> >> the Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?
> >>
> >> <mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>
> >
> > And when my insta-rule goes thru, I'll be 2 gnomes richer...
> >
> > Serves you right :)
>
> Why me? BvS and WC both have more Gnomes then I do! ;)

You're HOOPy... :)

> Oh well, time to take evasive action.
>
> If I have any Gnomes that are not in my Gnome Bag, I put all such Gnomes in
> my Gnome Bag.

The insta-rule rule does not say anything about gnome bags...

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 23:39:19 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Friday 24 May 2002 11:24 pm, you wrote:
>> Quoth bd,
>> 
>>> On Friday 24 May 2002 11:12 pm, you wrote:
>>>> Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from
>>>> the Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?
>>>> 
>>>> <mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>
>>> 
>>> And when my insta-rule goes thru, I'll be 2 gnomes richer...
>>> 
>>> Serves you right :)
>> 
>> Why me? BvS and WC both have more Gnomes then I do! ;)
> 
> You're HOOPy... :)
> 
>> Oh well, time to take evasive action.
>> 
>> If I have any Gnomes that are not in my Gnome Bag, I put all such Gnomes in
>> my Gnome Bag.
> 
> The insta-rule rule does not say anything about gnome bags...

Nope, but the Gnomes in my Gnome bag will not technically be in my
possession 'till I take them out. You can steal from me; you can't steal
from my Gnome Bag ;)
-- 
Wonko

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 01:06:42 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pestilence
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/25/02 at 1:14 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>I set my DimShip ball. to: 5 Activ., 75 Charm
>
> I set my DimShip bouy. to: 20 Score, 60 Entrop.
>
> I buy a Gun and Armor.
>
> WC.

Buying a Gun and Armor requires Landing.  Are you Landing?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 01:07:32 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Run
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/25/02 at 1:18 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>I run to (2,10 + 1)
>
>I take the ball of wax.
>
>WC

You don't have to use "10 + 1".  Numbers don't count under Entropy.  Unless someone redefined "10" when I wasn't looking...:)

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 01:14:12 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/24/02 at 11:14 PM bd wrote:

>On Friday 24 May 2002 11:12 pm, you wrote:
>> Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from
>the
>> Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?
>>
>> <mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>
>
>And when my insta-rule goes thru, I'll be 2 gnomes richer...
>
>Serves you right :)

The Insta-Rule rule says you have to be adjacent to someone to take stuff from em.  Thorry, thport.

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 01:26:23 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/24/02 at 11:12 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/24/02 at 9:05 AM Wonko wrote:
>>> 
>>> I appeal this CFJ on the grounds that there is a rule saying that Iain
>may
>>> not join M-Tek in this way. It's the Default Case, which says that
>players
>>> may not change the gamestate.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Wonko
>> 
>> As a member of the Upper House, I rule FALSE on CFI 727.
>> 
>> For analysis I reiterate an earlier statement regarding this CFI:
>> 
>> The Default Case, Rule 393, says it defers to all other rules.
>> 
>> M-Tek was created via a Charter Prop.
>> 
>> Rule 631 says Charter Props create Clubs.
>> 
>> Rule 578 says a Club is a Society.
>> 
>> Rule 578 says entities may be members of Societies.
>> 
>> Iain, by accepting my invitation, declared emself to be a member of
>M-Tek.
>> 
>> Rule 631 says members of a Club must obey the rules stated in the Club's
>> Charter.
>> 
>> The Club Charter for M-Tek dictates the circumstances whereby a person
>can
>> become a member.
>> 
>> The circumstances under which Iain declared emself a member is
>consistent with
>> the circumstances outlined in the M-Tek Club Charter.
>> 
>> Therefore, Iain is obeying the rules in the M-Tek Club Charter that
>determine
>> whether or not e is a member.
>> 
>> Since Rule 393 defers to all other rules, it defers to Rules 578 and
>631, in
>> conjunction with the M-Tek Charter.
>
>Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from the
>Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?
>
><mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Sure the LOOP Charter permits you to rob the Gremlin Fund.  And while we're on the subject, you certainly have my permission to break into Fort Knox and steal a gold brick for a paperweight.

In either case, it doesn't make it legal for you to do so.

Besides, the LOOP Charter as I understand it doesn't explicitly permit you to rob the Gremlin Fund.  It only permits you to oust members by robbing the Gremlin Fund.  That doesn't say robbing the Gremlin Fund is legal.  By the way, you can get a job as my towel boy for $50,000 a year if you go clean out your local Riggs National Bank and give me the money.  Under no other circumstances will I hire you.  Is the robbery legal yet?

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 01:33:09 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal:  __Stand Still!__
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/24/02 at 1:26 AM Ed Murphy wrote:

>Proposal:  __Stand Still!__
>
>Amend Rule 128 (Judgement) by appending this text:
>{{
>     A Judge shall choose eir response according to the Statement's truth
>     or falsity at the time of the Call, not at the time of eir Judgement.
>}}

I have a problem with this. (Sorry for not responding before proposing closed.) My problem is, what about overlapping CFIs, which address issues that have to do with one another?  Suppose CFI X addresses a set of circumstances, and CFI Y addresses a different set of circumstances, and CFI gets judged on, and the result changes the set of circumstances CFI Y is based on.  CFI Y is no longer applicable to the situation, because the situation's changed.  Yet, per your proposal, CFI Y will still have to be judged as per circumstances at the time CFI Y was made, which was before CFI X's judgment changed everything.

I mean, no, this isn't gonna come up every day, but...

						Glotmorf

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pestilence 
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 12:20:12 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Buying a Gun and Armor requires Landing.  Are you Landing?

 I can't see that in the rules...

 WC.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: __Stand Still!__ 
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 12:23:58 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I have a problem with this. (Sorry for not responding before proposing>  closed.) My problem is, what about overlapping CFIs, which address issues>  that have to do with one another?  Suppose CFI X addresses a set of>  circumstances, and CFI Y addresses a different set of circumstances, and>  CFI gets judged on, and the result changes the set of circumstances CFI Y>  is based on.  CFI Y is no longer applicable to the situation, because the>  situation's changed.  Yet, per your proposal, CFI Y will still have to be>  judged as per circumstances at the time CFI Y was made, which was before>  CFI X's judgment changed everything.

 Because CFI X didn't change the truth, it just changed our
perception of the truth.

 WC.

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 12:56:21 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Naath Thabana?= <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday afternoon)
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Naath judges CFI 727 (FALSE). This ruling is
> immediately appealed: Naath
> (who is now a member of the Upper House), Glotmorf,
> and Baron von Skippy
> are selected.

um what does this mean I have to do??

Naath

==Like duct tape the force is, a light side and a dark side it has, holds the universe together it does, hmm.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 08:54:48 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
  (Friday afternoon)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/25/02 at 12:56 PM Naath Thabana wrote:

>> Naath judges CFI 727 (FALSE). This ruling is
>> immediately appealed: Naath
>> (who is now a member of the Upper House), Glotmorf,
>> and Baron von Skippy
>> are selected.
>
>um what does this mean I have to do??
>
>Naath

If you still feel the same way about the CFI, you can just repeat what you said before.

A little weird, isn't it? :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 09:00:09 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pestilence
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/25/02 at 12:20 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>> Buying a Gun and Armor requires Landing.  Are you Landing?
>
> I can't see that in the rules...
>
> WC.

Sixth paragraph of r493: "DimShips can be landed at any time, and must be landed when adding equipment or conducting repairs."

						Glotmorf

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 16:38:11 +0100 (BST)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 16 BALLOT
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Proposal 691/0: Mentorship (Wild Card)

Abstain

> Proposal 692/0: Request for Comments (Wild Card)

No. Why?

> Proposal 693/0: I can't do that! I love her! (Rob)

Yes

> Proposal 694/0: Appeal to Overturn CFI 688 (The Administrator)

Yes. It apears from the website that the Upper house has already ruled
this to be false?

> Proposal 695/1: Healthy Competition (Baron von Skippy)

Abstain

> Proposal 707/1: Time Freeze, my butt (The Voice)

Abstain. Im not sure it works?

> Proposal 709/1: Delegation Means Delegation (Glotmorf)

Yes

> Proposal 710/0: Sing When You're Winning (The Administrator)

Yes

> Proposal 711/0: There's No Style In Deficit Spending (M-Tek)

Yes.

> Proposal 713/1: Club Clarification (Wild Card)

Yes

> Proposal 714/1: Less is More - Grems. (Glotmorf)

Yes

> Proposal 715/1: Neatening Up Gnomes (Wonko)

Yes

> Proposal 716/0: The Second Mouse Gets The Cheese (Rob)

Yes

> Proposal 717/0: Jumping through HOOPs (Wonko)

No

> Proposal 718/0: Slime, Inflatable Women, etc. (Wonko)

No

> Proposal 719/0: Violent green. (The Reality Police)

Abstain

> Proposal 720/0: interesting? (Naath)

Abstain

> Proposal 722/1: Nweek 16 Hole Plugs (Glotmorf)

Abstain
> Proposal 723/0: And the Children Shall Lead (Glotmorf)

No

> Proposal 724/0: The Casino (bd)

Yes

> Proposal 725/0: LOGAS cleanup (bd)

Yes

> Proposal 726/0: Now you see me, now you don't! (The Voice)

Yes

> Proposal 729/1: Exorcism of much evil (bd)

Yes

> Proposal 730/0: Definitions (Wonko)

Abstain

> Proposal 731/0: Bandwidth Pools (Wonko)

Abstain

> Proposal 732/0: The PIG v2.0 (Wonko)

Yes

> Proposal 733/0: Boxes (Wonko)

No

> Proposal 734/0: Repeat as Needed (M-Tek)

Yes 

> Proposal 735/0: Stand Still! (Ed Murphy)

Yes

> Proposal 736/0: Our physical shells are rotting. (The Reality Police)

No (What?)

> Proposal 738/0: R-E-S-P-E-C-T (The Voice)

YES!

> Proposal 739/0: Cleaning up Wonko's mess (The Voice)

Yes

> Proposal 740/0: A Raise for Mr. A (The Voice)

Yes
> Proposal 741/0: More Club Stuff (Wild Card)

Yes

cheers,
Iain 

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: open CFIs
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 11:40:52 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>CFI 708: Assigned to Rob, Glotmorf, and The Voice (of the Upper House).
>Glotmorf has ruled; Rob and The Voice have not. (Though it's probably safe
>to assume that Rob's opinion will not change, I can't legally make that
>assumption.)
>...dave
>

Umm... doesn't the fact that I resigned from the upper house recuse me from 
this duty?  Or do I still have to because I resigned after I was assigned?

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 16:05:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: open CFIs
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 25 May 2002, The Voice wrote:

> >CFI 708: Assigned to Rob, Glotmorf, and The Voice (of the Upper House).
>
> Umm... doesn't the fact that I resigned from the upper house recuse me from
> this duty?  Or do I still have to because I resigned after I was assigned?

It's that second one, so far as I know.

...dave

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Saturday morning)
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 12:51:09 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Saturday 25 May 2002 10:33 am, you wrote:
> bd attempts a risky gambit, borrowing lots of points from Luigi to buy a
> DimShip. The gambit fails, though -- even borrowing 80 points, e can't
> afford a DimShip (the other 20 points e had at one time were from one of
> the failed incarnations of the HOOP). bd, you may want to pay those points
> back, unless you want a Broken Limb for no real benefit.

I almost went thru a loophole the size of a planet... Darn.

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: proposal 738
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 13:12:51 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Proposal 738/0: R-E-S-P-E-C-T (The Voice)
SHELVE {{Clarify it a bit...}}

That is the only accepted format to respect someone (check the rule).

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 13:38:06 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 16 BALLOT
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 01:10:44PM -0400, bd wrote:
> > Proposal 738/0: R-E-S-P-E-C-T (The Voice)
> SHELVE {{Clarify it a bit...}}

No clarification is needed. This is a standard proposal of Respect,
which will give The Voice 1 point (I think) of Respect if it passes.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 16 BALLOT
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 13:40:07 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Saturday 25 May 2002 1:10 pm, you wrote:
<snip>
> > Proposal 738/0: R-E-S-P-E-C-T (The Voice)
>
> SHELVE {{Clarify it a bit...}}

Change that to YES.

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 14:11:46 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/24/02 at 11:12 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>> 
>>> On 5/24/02 at 9:05 AM Wonko wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I appeal this CFJ on the grounds that there is a rule saying that Iain
>> may
>>>> not join M-Tek in this way. It's the Default Case, which says that
>> players
>>>> may not change the gamestate.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Wonko
>>> 
>>> As a member of the Upper House, I rule FALSE on CFI 727.
>>> 
>>> For analysis I reiterate an earlier statement regarding this CFI:
>>> 
>>> The Default Case, Rule 393, says it defers to all other rules.
>>> 
>>> M-Tek was created via a Charter Prop.
>>> 
>>> Rule 631 says Charter Props create Clubs.
>>> 
>>> Rule 578 says a Club is a Society.
>>> 
>>> Rule 578 says entities may be members of Societies.
>>> 
>>> Iain, by accepting my invitation, declared emself to be a member of
>> M-Tek.
>>> 
>>> Rule 631 says members of a Club must obey the rules stated in the Club's
>>> Charter.
>>> 
>>> The Club Charter for M-Tek dictates the circumstances whereby a person
>> can
>>> become a member.
>>> 
>>> The circumstances under which Iain declared emself a member is
>> consistent with
>>> the circumstances outlined in the M-Tek Club Charter.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, Iain is obeying the rules in the M-Tek Club Charter that
>> determine
>>> whether or not e is a member.
>>> 
>>> Since Rule 393 defers to all other rules, it defers to Rules 578 and
>> 631, in
>>> conjunction with the M-Tek Charter.
>> 
>> Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from the
>> Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?
>> 
>> <mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> Sure the LOOP Charter permits you to rob the Gremlin Fund.  And while we're on
> the subject, you certainly have my permission to break into Fort Knox and
> steal a gold brick for a paperweight.
> 
> In either case, it doesn't make it legal for you to do so.
> 
> Besides, the LOOP Charter as I understand it doesn't explicitly permit you to
> rob the Gremlin Fund.  It only permits you to oust members by robbing the
> Gremlin Fund.  That doesn't say robbing the Gremlin Fund is legal.  By the
> way, you can get a job as my towel boy for $50,000 a year if you go clean out
> your local Riggs National Bank and give me the money.  Under no other
> circumstances will I hire you.  Is the robbery legal yet?

Then r14, as you understand it, must not explicitly permit players to
publicly declare eir intention to forfeit. It only permits them forfeit by
publicly delcaring eir intention to forfeit. That doesn't say publicly
declaring one's intention to forfeit is legal.

As to the towel boy analogy, if there were a law that said 'Citizens may
accept jobs as towel boys by cleaning out banks', then yes, it would be
legal.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 14:12:59 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/24/02 at 11:14 PM bd wrote:
> 
>> On Friday 24 May 2002 11:12 pm, you wrote:
>>> Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from
>> the
>>> Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?
>>> 
>>> <mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>
>> 
>> And when my insta-rule goes thru, I'll be 2 gnomes richer...
>> 
>> Serves you right :)
> 
> The Insta-Rule rule says you have to be adjacent to someone to take stuff from
> em.  Thorry, thport.

But a later paragraph in the Insta-Rule rule says that if an Insta-Rule
permits players to perform an action, then players may perform it. I'll fix
that ASAP.

-- 
Wonko

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 16 BALLOT
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 14:19:34 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 16 BALLOT
>Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 13:38:06 -0400
>
>On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 01:10:44PM -0400, bd wrote:
> > > Proposal 738/0: R-E-S-P-E-C-T (The Voice)
> > SHELVE {{Clarify it a bit...}}
>
>No clarification is needed. This is a standard proposal of Respect,
>which will give The Voice 1 point (I think) of Respect if it passes.
>--
>Rob Speer
>

Not me, Murphy. (For the Bulletin)

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 15:37:31 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 24 May 2002 11:24 pm, you wrote:
> Quoth bd,
>
> > On Friday 24 May 2002 11:12 pm, you wrote:
> >> Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from
> >> the Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?
> >>
> >> <mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>
> >
> > And when my insta-rule goes thru, I'll be 2 gnomes richer...
> >
> > Serves you right :)
>
> Why me? BvS and WC both have more Gnomes then I do! ;)
>
> Oh well, time to take evasive action.
>
> If I have any Gnomes that are not in my Gnome Bag, I put all such Gnomes in
> my Gnome Bag.

r637/0:

Gnomes in a player's Gnome Bag are still possessed by that player. 

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 16:22:14 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 02:11:46PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
> Then r14, as you understand it, must not explicitly permit players to
> publicly declare eir intention to forfeit. It only permits them forfeit by
> publicly delcaring eir intention to forfeit. That doesn't say publicly
> declaring one's intention to forfeit is legal.

r14 doesn't need to say that publicly declaring one's intention to
forfeit is legal, because it already is (by the rule defining Public
Forums, and Permissibility of the Unprohibited).

If publicly declaring one's intention to forfeit were for some reason
illegal, then r14 wouldn't make it legal. Glotmorf's reasoning is sound.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 19:50:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Physical Law/Mutable Rule
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I am working on a proposal that will divide the existing ruleset into
Physical Laws and Mutable Rules.  It is also a way for me to once again
become famailiar with the ruleset.  The sense behind the division is to
create some sort of division between what is possible and what is legal.
So although it might be possible to, for example, alter the score of
another player, it isn't legal.  There will also be a general cleanup of
the rules.  It is similar to the division in Suberian nomic between
mutable and immutable rules: the Physical Laws provide the basic mechanics
of the game and the mutable rules will provide the means for actually
getting things done.  There will also be a useable way of creating club
charters and in fact any body of rules that applies to a subset of
players.

I have already put enough work into this proposal that I really don't want
it to fail so I'll have to put in place any suggestions that anyone makes.

Here's draft.

Defining Rule
{{
There exist three types of rules: Physical Laws, Mutable Rules, and
Charter Rules.

Physical Laws take precedence over all other rules.  No Mutable Rule or
Charter Rule can declare an exception to any Physical Law.

Charter Rules defer to all other rules.  No Charter Rule may declare an
exception to any other rule.  The subsetset of entities to which a Charter
Rule or group of Charter Rules applies must be specified by Mutable Rule
of Physical Law.
}}

To make this work requires surprisingly few changes:  Here are the biggest
ones.

25/1 The Administrator - Physical Law
{{
The Administrator is responsible for all game duties not assigned by the
Rules to the other players.  The Administrator may make changes to the
Rules and the Game State.  The Administrator is also responsible for
updating the Game State to show the results of actions taken.
}}

Ministers - Physical Law
{{
Ministers may make changes to the game state within the juristiction of
their ministry.
}}

Permissions - Mutable Rule 
{{ 
Ministers and The Administrator may change the rules or game state only as
instructed to do so by Mutable Rules.
}}

Here is the list of physical laws.  A few of them will need fixes.  I
would also like to combine the gremlin definitions because there are a lot
of them scattered all over the place and they make very little sense
unless grouped together.  I'd like to do the same for gnomes and
miscellaneous grid objects.
Physical Laws:
1/0 The Game
2/1 Names
3/6 Time
4/3 Versions and Revision Numbers
5/3 Serial Numbers
7/0 Spivak Pronouns
8/1 Comments
9/0 Randomness and Dice
13/1 Players (fix)
14/0 Forfeit (fix)
16/0 Fora
17/3 Timing of Events
25/0 The Administrator (fixed)
150/1 Screw That! (fix)
151/0 That Wasn't Me!
153/2 Universal Law
154/4 Dimensions
205/2 Leaves of Absence
206/0 Garbage Collection
207/0 Merrymaking
210/0 You Are Here
213/4 The Cursed Sushi of Babel
214/2 I Can't See The Clock
217/3 Standard Delimiters
256/3 Gremlins
258/4 The Pink Cashmere Scarf of Impeccable Style
260/2 Kick in the Ass
262/0 Individuality
263/1 Titles
293/6 The Immunity Idol
295/2 Girls Will Be Boys and Boys Will Be Girls...and Drones
296/4 The Scoring Gremlin
297/2 The Witch Gremlin
298/1 List Of Nobility
299/1 Bandwidth Gremlin
300/2 Keywords
301/8 The Grid
344/0 I've Got the Style It Takes
345/1 The LoanShark Gremlin (AKA Luigi)
346/2 Big Rocks
347/1 The violence inherent in the system
348/4 The Yeti
349/0 Grid Objects
350/0 Pinball Guns
351/1 Elbonian Airways
352/0 i said i've got a big stick
353/0 Shields
354/0 Buttplates
355/2 GremBall
356/2 Sexy Sirens On The Rocks
393/0 The All-Important Default Case (fix)
394/10 Monday Night Football!
395/1 I get no respect!
400/2 The Meteor Gremlin
401/1 A Whole New Ball Of Wax
402/2 The Window Gremlins
405/2 Weather
406/1 Yoyo Gnomes
407/0 Space
408/1 Water, Water Everywhere
439/0 Hiding Really Means Hiding
440/6 Entropy
441/1 Gnomes
442/0 Basic Gnomes
443/0 Third and long... *boot!*
446/1 Radar
467/0 Ice Gnomes
468/0 Fire Gnomes
469/0 Dimensional Realms
492/0 The Golden-Armed Gremlin
493/3 DimShips
494/1 Siren Bait (fix)
495/1 Rah, Rah, Sis Boom Bah! (fix)
496/0 the AAAHHH! Gremlin
497/1 Subsections
498/4 Beer Cans
499/0 The 5-Star General Gremlin
500/0 The Goon Gremlin
501/0 The Police Gremlin
502/1 Happy New nYear
503/0 Cheers!
545/1 Temperature
546/0 Pass! I'm Open!
547/1 Death
548/1 Sheep Gnomes
549/0 Shears
550/2 Cotton Swabs
551/1 The Bandit Gremlin
573/2 Stop the World!  I Wanna Get Off! (split)
574/0 The Bowling Gremlin
575/0 Replication
576/1 The Gnome Factory
577/0 Radar Towers
579/0 The Flaming Gremlin
581/0 Weather Gnomes
628/0 Blood Alcohol Content
632/0 Garbage Cans
635/0 DimShip Guns and Armor
637/0 Gnome Bags
638/2 The Wine List
639/0 Gnomes Up The Wazoo
640/0 Winter Gnomes
641/0 Summer Gnomes
662/0 Impaired coordination
664/0 Heard it through the grapevine
696/0 BYOB
699/0 The Slightly Less Important Not-So Default Case
700/0 Minister of the Survey of Ordinance (fix and switch)
705/0 Bonus Boxes

Everything else is Mutable

Mutable Rules:
15/2 Nweekly Voting
19/5 Poposals (fix)
20/2 Eligible Voters
22/2 Post-Win Reset
23/1 The Ballot
24/0 The Roster
26/0 New Players
27/1 Winning
28/1 Designation of Fora
29/0 Twilight of the Fora
30/1 Vote Counting
32/8 Proposal Passage
124/0 Proposal Scoring
125/0 Automation
126/6 Call For Inquiry
127/3 Judges
128/6 Judgement
129/3 Statute of Limitations
155/2 No kickbacks
204/1 Thou Shalt Not Screw With Time
208/0 Proxies
209/0 Misbehaving Judges
211/0 Paper Trail
212/1 Bandwidth Rationing
216/1 Elimination of Boilerplate (fix action for instruction to the Admin.
Take out the bit about Standard Delimiters)
255/2 Typos
257/3 powers of Executive Tidiness
294/0 Limitation of Voting
358/0 Dependant Proposals
396/1 A Little Fun For Everyone
403/0 Opposed Proposals
404/3 Judicial Rear View
436/1 You Can't Have Football Without Color Commentary
437/1 Literary Forms
578/1 Societies
580/2 Shelve
625/1 Ministers 
626/0 Ministerial Elections 
627/0 Ministerial Non-Confidence
629/0 Yawn
630/1 Club Props
631/1 Club Charters
633/0 The Upper House
636/0 Keep your hands off!
697/0 Consent of Ministers 
698/0 Insta-Rules
701/0 Insta-Minister
703/0 The Other Exploitation
704/0 Judgement Props
706/0 A La Carte Props

The number of Physical Laws will go down with the overhaul of Grid
Objects, and perhaps some general rules for things like transfer,
throwing, and movement.  It might be possible to make the bulk of Football
rules into Charter rules.

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 19:56:14 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Physical Law/Mutable Rule
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron,

> Here is the list of physical laws.  A few of them will need fixes.  I
> would also like to combine the gremlin definitions because there are a lot
> of them scattered all over the place and they make very little sense
> unless grouped together.  I'd like to do the same for gnomes and
> miscellaneous grid objects.

We're well ahead of you there. Both Gremlins and Gnomes are, if the
respective proposals pass, new victims of the 'Less is More' movement. And
someone (Glotmorf?) was talking about collecting the other stuff into a
master rule too.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 19:57:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Physical Law/Mutable Rule
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> We're well ahead of you there. Both Gremlins and Gnomes are, if the
> respective proposals pass, new victims of the 'Less is More' movement. And
> someone (Glotmorf?) was talking about collecting the other stuff into a
> master rule too.

Good.  That'll make this a lot easier

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 20:06:30 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/24/02 at 11:12 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>> 
>>> On 5/24/02 at 9:05 AM Wonko wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I appeal this CFJ on the grounds that there is a rule saying that Iain
>> may
>>>> not join M-Tek in this way. It's the Default Case, which says that
>> players
>>>> may not change the gamestate.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Wonko
>>> 
>>> As a member of the Upper House, I rule FALSE on CFI 727.
>>> 
>>> For analysis I reiterate an earlier statement regarding this CFI:
>>> 
>>> The Default Case, Rule 393, says it defers to all other rules.
>>> 
>>> M-Tek was created via a Charter Prop.
>>> 
>>> Rule 631 says Charter Props create Clubs.
>>> 
>>> Rule 578 says a Club is a Society.
>>> 
>>> Rule 578 says entities may be members of Societies.
>>> 
>>> Iain, by accepting my invitation, declared emself to be a member of
>> M-Tek.
>>> 
>>> Rule 631 says members of a Club must obey the rules stated in the Club's
>>> Charter.
>>> 
>>> The Club Charter for M-Tek dictates the circumstances whereby a person
>> can
>>> become a member.
>>> 
>>> The circumstances under which Iain declared emself a member is
>> consistent with
>>> the circumstances outlined in the M-Tek Club Charter.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, Iain is obeying the rules in the M-Tek Club Charter that
>> determine
>>> whether or not e is a member.
>>> 
>>> Since Rule 393 defers to all other rules, it defers to Rules 578 and
>> 631, in
>>> conjunction with the M-Tek Charter.
>> 
>> Ah. Then the fact that the LOOP Charter permits me to take points from the
>> Gremlin Fund also makes it legal, via the same logic, no?
>> 
>> <mrburns> Excellent. </mrburns>
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> Sure the LOOP Charter permits you to rob the Gremlin Fund.  And while we're on
> the subject, you certainly have my permission to break into Fort Knox and
> steal a gold brick for a paperweight.
> 
> In either case, it doesn't make it legal for you to do so.
> 
> Besides, the LOOP Charter as I understand it doesn't explicitly permit you to
> rob the Gremlin Fund.  It only permits you to oust members by robbing the
> Gremlin Fund.  That doesn't say robbing the Gremlin Fund is legal.  By the
> way, you can get a job as my towel boy for $50,000 a year if you go clean out
> your local Riggs National Bank and give me the money.  Under no other
> circumstances will I hire you.  Is the robbery legal yet?

I think you're making the mistake of confusing Nomic laws with Real World
laws. There's a very fundamental difference - laws in the real world are
governed by what the real word is; laws in the Nomic world *define* what the
Nomic world is.

In the real world, if a law says, 'Any person may make themself president of
the world by picking up Mt. Everest and balancing it on their nose', that
does not mean that I suddenly am strong enough to rip a mountain off the
ground and put it on my nose. The laws of Physics, which take precedence
over human laws, dictate that it is impossible. Nomic, however, is
unburdened by the laws of Physics. There is no such thing as an action that
is 'impossible', merely actions that are 'illegal'. If a rule says, 'Any
person may make themself president of the world by picking up Mt. Everest
and balancing it on their nose', then I can, for the purposes of the game,
perform the game action of picking up Mt. Everest and balancing it on my
nose.

If there were a law that dictated that I could make myself president by
picking up a mountain, and the laws of Physics were temporarily disabled to
allow me to do so, then the action would be legal.

There are no limits on what I 'could' or 'could not' do. There are only
things I 'am' or 'am not' permitted to do.

-- 
Wonko

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 22:05:29 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

As to the towel boy analogy, if there were a law that said 'Citizens may
accept jobs as towel boys by cleaning out banks', then yes, it would be
legal.

-*walks through room, pauses* Except you two would endlessly debate whether 
mopping counted as cleaning out. You know, Wonko, things were pretty quiet 
when you weren't here. About 20 messages a day quieter. Yeez... *leaves 
room*-

                                           -BvS-

--
Wonko

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 22:13:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, 25 May 2002, Alex Truelsen wrote:

> As to the towel boy analogy, if there were a law that said 'Citizens may
> accept jobs as towel boys by cleaning out banks', then yes, it would be
> legal.

This is the issue I am addressing with my proposal-in-progress.  Right now
the rules are serving two purposes: they are both defining the game world
and they are regulating player actions.  By dividing these into different
categories of rules it will make it easier to resolve situations such as
this one.

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 22:42:56 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Physical Law/Mutable Rule
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay, suggestions:

Quoth Dan Waldron,

> 
> Defining Rule
I assume this would be Physical Law?
> {{
> There exist three types of rules: Physical Laws, Mutable Rules, and
> Charter Rules.
> 
> Physical Laws take precedence over all other rules.  No Mutable Rule or
> Charter Rule can declare an exception to any Physical Law.
> 
> Charter Rules defer to all other rules.  No Charter Rule may declare an
> exception to any other rule.  The subsetset of entities to which a Charter
> Rule or group of Charter Rules applies must be specified by Mutable Rule
> of Physical Law.
Subsetset? Maybe only one 'set'?
> }}
> 
> To make this work requires surprisingly few changes:  Here are the biggest
> ones.
> 
> 25/1 The Administrator - Physical Law
> {{
> The Administrator is responsible for all game duties not assigned by the
> Rules to the other players.  The Administrator may make changes to the
> Rules and the Game State.  The Administrator is also responsible for
> updating the Game State to show the results of actions taken.
> }}
> 
> Ministers - Physical Law
> {{
> Ministers may make changes to the game state within the juristiction of
> their ministry.
> }}
> 
> 
> Permissions - Mutable Rule
> {{ 
> Ministers and The Administrator may change the rules or game state only as
> instructed to do so by Mutable Rules.
> }}

Why is this mutable? Doesn't that mean that the two Physical Law rules that
grant the (Ad)Minist(rat)(e/o)rs the power to change the gamestate at will
take precedence over it?

> Here is the list of physical laws.  A few of them will need fixes.  I
> would also like to combine the gremlin definitions because there are a lot
> of them scattered all over the place and they make very little sense
> unless grouped together.  I'd like to do the same for gnomes and
> miscellaneous grid objects.
> Physical Laws:
> 1/0 The Game
> 2/1 Names
> 3/6 Time
> 4/3 Versions and Revision Numbers
> 5/3 Serial Numbers
> 7/0 Spivak Pronouns
> 8/1 Comments
> 9/0 Randomness and Dice
> 13/1 Players (fix)
> 14/0 Forfeit (fix)
> 16/0 Fora
> 17/3 Timing of Events
> 25/0 The Administrator (fixed)
> 150/1 Screw That! (fix)
> 151/0 That Wasn't Me!
> 153/2 Universal Law
> 154/4 Dimensions
> 205/2 Leaves of Absence
> 206/0 Garbage Collection
> 207/0 Merrymaking
> 210/0 You Are Here
> 213/4 The Cursed Sushi of Babel
> 214/2 I Can't See The Clock
> 217/3 Standard Delimiters
Is there any reason why this is Law?
> 256/3 Gremlins
> 258/4 The Pink Cashmere Scarf of Impeccable Style
> 260/2 Kick in the Ass
> 262/0 Individuality
> 263/1 Titles
> 293/6 The Immunity Idol
> 295/2 Girls Will Be Boys and Boys Will Be Girls...and Drones
> 296/4 The Scoring Gremlin
> 297/2 The Witch Gremlin
> 298/1 List Of Nobility
> 299/1 Bandwidth Gremlin
> 300/2 Keywords
> 301/8 The Grid
> 344/0 I've Got the Style It Takes
> 345/1 The LoanShark Gremlin (AKA Luigi)
> 346/2 Big Rocks
> 347/1 The violence inherent in the system
> 348/4 The Yeti
> 349/0 Grid Objects
> 350/0 Pinball Guns
> 351/1 Elbonian Airways
> 352/0 i said i've got a big stick
> 353/0 Shields
> 354/0 Buttplates
> 355/2 GremBall
> 356/2 Sexy Sirens On The Rocks
> 393/0 The All-Important Default Case (fix)
> 394/10 Monday Night Football!
> 395/1 I get no respect!
> 400/2 The Meteor Gremlin
> 401/1 A Whole New Ball Of Wax
> 402/2 The Window Gremlins
> 405/2 Weather
> 406/1 Yoyo Gnomes
> 407/0 Space
> 408/1 Water, Water Everywhere
> 439/0 Hiding Really Means Hiding
> 440/6 Entropy
> 441/1 Gnomes
> 442/0 Basic Gnomes
> 443/0 Third and long... *boot!*
> 446/1 Radar
> 467/0 Ice Gnomes
> 468/0 Fire Gnomes
> 469/0 Dimensional Realms
> 492/0 The Golden-Armed Gremlin
> 493/3 DimShips
> 494/1 Siren Bait (fix)
> 495/1 Rah, Rah, Sis Boom Bah! (fix)
> 496/0 the AAAHHH! Gremlin
> 497/1 Subsections
> 498/4 Beer Cans
> 499/0 The 5-Star General Gremlin
> 500/0 The Goon Gremlin
> 501/0 The Police Gremlin
> 502/1 Happy New nYear
> 503/0 Cheers!
> 545/1 Temperature
> 546/0 Pass! I'm Open!
> 547/1 Death
> 548/1 Sheep Gnomes
> 549/0 Shears
> 550/2 Cotton Swabs
> 551/1 The Bandit Gremlin
> 573/2 Stop the World!  I Wanna Get Off! (split)
> 574/0 The Bowling Gremlin
> 575/0 Replication
> 576/1 The Gnome Factory
> 577/0 Radar Towers
> 579/0 The Flaming Gremlin
> 581/0 Weather Gnomes
> 628/0 Blood Alcohol Content
> 632/0 Garbage Cans
> 635/0 DimShip Guns and Armor
> 637/0 Gnome Bags
> 638/2 The Wine List
> 639/0 Gnomes Up The Wazoo
> 640/0 Winter Gnomes
> 641/0 Summer Gnomes
> 662/0 Impaired coordination
> 664/0 Heard it through the grapevine
> 696/0 BYOB
> 699/0 The Slightly Less Important Not-So Default Case
> 700/0 Minister of the Survey of Ordinance (fix and switch)
> 705/0 Bonus Boxes
> 
> Everything else is Mutable
> 
> Mutable Rules:
> 15/2 Nweekly Voting
> 19/5 Poposals (fix)
Poposal? I hope this won't become another 'proosal' thing... ;)
> 20/2 Eligible Voters
> 22/2 Post-Win Reset
> 23/1 The Ballot
> 24/0 The Roster
> 26/0 New Players
> 27/1 Winning
> 28/1 Designation of Fora
> 29/0 Twilight of the Fora
> 30/1 Vote Counting
> 32/8 Proposal Passage
> 124/0 Proposal Scoring
> 125/0 Automation
> 126/6 Call For Inquiry
> 127/3 Judges
> 128/6 Judgement
> 129/3 Statute of Limitations
> 155/2 No kickbacks
> 204/1 Thou Shalt Not Screw With Time
> 208/0 Proxies
> 209/0 Misbehaving Judges
> 211/0 Paper Trail
> 212/1 Bandwidth Rationing
> 216/1 Elimination of Boilerplate (fix action for instruction to the Admin.
> Take out the bit about Standard Delimiters)
> 255/2 Typos
> 257/3 powers of Executive Tidiness
> 294/0 Limitation of Voting
> 358/0 Dependant Proposals
> 396/1 A Little Fun For Everyone
> 403/0 Opposed Proposals
> 404/3 Judicial Rear View
> 436/1 You Can't Have Football Without Color Commentary
> 437/1 Literary Forms
> 578/1 Societies
> 580/2 Shelve
***
> 625/1 Ministers 
> 626/0 Ministerial Elections
> 627/0 Ministerial Non-Confidence
***
Didn't you say Ministers were going to be PhysLaw?
> 629/0 Yawn
> 630/1 Club Props
> 631/1 Club Charters
> 633/0 The Upper House
> 636/0 Keep your hands off!
> 697/0 Consent of Ministers
> 698/0 Insta-Rules
> 701/0 Insta-Minister
> 703/0 The Other Exploitation
Umm... You could repeal this if you wanted... anyone?
> 704/0 Judgement Props
> 706/0 A La Carte Props

So what exactly determines whether something ought to be Law or Rule? I
understand most of it, but some things don't make sense... like why is the
Insta-Minister Rule but the Survey Minister Law?

-- 
Wonko

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 22:49:01 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Saturday 25 May 2002 10:13 pm, you wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2002, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> > As to the towel boy analogy, if there were a law that said 'Citizens may
> > accept jobs as towel boys by cleaning out banks', then yes, it would be
> > legal.
>
> This is the issue I am addressing with my proposal-in-progress.  Right now
> the rules are serving two purposes: they are both defining the game world
> and they are regulating player actions.  By dividing these into different
> categories of rules it will make it easier to resolve situations such as
> this one.

Why not divide them into Rules, Laws, and Regulations?

Rules cannot be broken, Laws can be broken, but something bad will happen if 
you do, and Regulations are opt-in Laws...

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 22:59:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 727 Appeal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Why not divide them into Rules, Laws, and Regulations?
> 
> Rules cannot be broken, Laws can be broken, but something bad will happen if 
> you do, and Regulations are opt-in Laws...

That's essentially what I am doing.  What I call Physical Laws cannot be
broken.  What I call Mutable Rules also cannot be broken (but maybe that
will change... but we would need to go through and specify penalties for
everything) and what I call Charter Rules are opt-in rules but there might
be different ways of opting in than just joining a club, for example we
could have a set of charter rules that applies only to Ministers, another
that applies only to Judges and so on.

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 02:03:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Physical Law/Mutable Rule
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Okay, suggestions:

> > Defining Rule
> I assume this would be Physical Law?

Yes.  Although it might also be neat to have the Charter Rule definition
exist only in the Mutable Rules.
> Subsetset? Maybe only one 'set'?
Oops.  There's a few other typos too.

> > }}
> > 
> > To make this work requires surprisingly few changes:  Here are the biggest
> > ones.
> > 
> > 25/1 The Administrator - Physical Law
> > {{
> > The Administrator is responsible for all game duties not assigned by the
> > Rules to the other players.  The Administrator may make changes to the
> > Rules and the Game State.  The Administrator is also responsible for
> > updating the Game State to show the results of actions taken.
> > }}
> > 
> > Ministers - Physical Law
> > {{
> > Ministers may make changes to the game state within the juristiction of
> > their ministry.
> > }}
> > 
> > 
> > Permissions - Mutable Rule
> > {{ 
> > Ministers and The Administrator may change the rules or game state only as
> > instructed to do so by Mutable Rules.
> > }}
> 
> Why is this mutable? Doesn't that mean that the two Physical Law rules that
> grant the (Ad)Minist(rat)(e/o)rs the power to change the gamestate at will
> take precedence over it?

The precedence system I want to establish is that the Mutable Rules cannot
make possible something prohibited by Physical Law, but that they can make
illegal something allowed by Physical Law.  I'll change the definition
rule to fix that.

> 
> > Here is the list of physical laws.  A few of them will need fixes.  I
> > would also like to combine the gremlin definitions because there are a lot
> > of them scattered all over the place and they make very little sense
> > unless grouped together.  I'd like to do the same for gnomes and
> > miscellaneous grid objects.
> > Physical Laws:
> > 217/3 Standard Delimiters
> Is there any reason why this is Law?

Because I think it would be inappropriate for a mutable rule to affect the
reading of a physical law.
> > 
> > Mutable Rules:
> > 15/2 Nweekly Voting
> > 19/5 Proposals (fix)
> Poposal? I hope this won't become another 'proosal' thing... ;)
what Poposal?
> ***
> > 625/1 Ministers 
> > 626/0 Ministerial Elections
> > 627/0 Ministerial Non-Confidence
> ***
> Didn't you say Ministers were going to be PhysLaw?
>
Ministers need a bit in the physical law to give them access to the
relevant bits of the game state.  But the actual duties and requirements
of each minister don't need to be.

> > 703/0 The Other Exploitation
> Umm... You could repeal this if you wanted... anyone?

uhhh... yeah.  I guess so.  Why don't we just keep it kicking around for a
while.

> > 704/0 Judgement Props
> > 706/0 A La Carte Props
> 
> 
> So what exactly determines whether something ought to be Law or Rule? I
> understand most of it, but some things don't make sense... like why is the
> Insta-Minister Rule but the Survey Minister Law?

Because I put the Survey Minister Law in the wrong category by mistake.
But I don't think I have all the basics covered on the minister rules.
Some of them are going to have to be rewritten.  All the minister rules
cross over what I see as the ideal boundary for this.  They involve
required duties and timings and information distribution, which I would
like to put in the Rules section, but they also involve making changes to
important game variables, which I would like to restrict in the Laws
section.

Here is my next revised version.  I have tried to fix the mistakes from
the first version and I have added a whole lotta stuff.

Defining Rule
{{
There exist three types of rules: Physical Laws, Mutable Rules, and
Charter Rules.

Physical Laws take precedence over all other rules.  Mutable Rules take
precedence over Charter Rules.

All entities defined by the Physical Laws by definition obey the Physical
Laws.  An action is impossible if it is prohibited by the Physical Laws.

Players, the Administrator, and any other self-willed entities are
required to obey the Mutable Rules. An action is illegal if it is
prohibited by the Mutable Rules.

Charter Rules are of lower precedence than Physical Laws or Mutable Rules.
Players are not required to obey Charter Rules except as specified in the
Mutable Rules.

}}

13/2 Players  - Physical Law
{{ 
A player is any entity who is capable of passing the
Turing test, consents to said designation as a player, has become a player
in the manner described in the rules, and who consents to be abide by the
Mutable Rules.  
}}

21/4 Score
{{
Players may own points. The number of points in the posession of a player
shall be known as eir score. 

The owner of one or more points may transfer any or all points in eir
possession to another legal owner by posting to the public forum.  

Whenever a rule states that a player receives points, the number of points
in eir possession shall be increased accordingly; whenever a rule states
that a player loses points, the number of points in eir possession shall
be lowered accordingly, but it shall never become less than zero.

New players initially do not possess any points.
}}

25/1 The Administrator - Physical Law 
{{ 
The Administrator may make changes to the Rules and the Game State.  The
Administrator is subject to the Mutable Rules.
}}

Obey the Rules - Mutable Rule 
{{ 
A player who refuses to obey the Rules is assumed to have withdrawn eir
consent.  E should be given a reasonable opportunity to correct eir
actions before this assumption is made.

If a player attempts to take an action that would violate the Rules the
Administrator or relevant minister shall refuse to recognize that action
unless the player specifically states that e is aware the action is
illegal but will attempt it anyway. 
}}

Duties of the Administrator - Mutable Rule
{{
The Administrator is responsible for all game duties not assigned by the
Rules to other players.

The Administrator shall alter the rules and the game state only as
follows:

E shall update the game state to reflect actions legally taken and
rules-defined events.

E shall create and distribute points when called upon to do so
by the Mutable Rules.

E shall alter the rules and game state as formally requested to do so by
players via procedures defined in the mutable rules.

If no players exist e shall make such changes to the rules and game state
as are nescessary to ensure that future play is possible.

}}

Charter Rules - Mutable Rule 
{{ 

Charter Rules are organized into rulesets.  Every Charter Ruleset has the
"Scope" attribute.  The scope of a ruleset is the set of players to whom
it applies. These players must obey the rules of that set.

The scope attribute of each existing Charter Ruleset must be defined in
the Mutable Rules.

Charter rules are of lower priority than Mutable Rules.  At no time may a
charter rule permit an action made illegal by the Mutable Rules or
impossible by the Physical Laws.
}}

Things that are still broken:
0/0 Emergency Management
33/2 Chutzpah
18/2 Permissibility of the Unprohibited
263/1 Titles
209/0 Misbehaving Judges
300/2 Keywords
440/6 Entropy

and probably a whole lot of other stuff.  Oh dear it looks like I'm going
to have to get myself a dimship sometime soon too.

Dan Waldron ICQ 57894467

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 15:31:04 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Votes
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron,

> Here are my votes.  With some changes to confuse your script.
> 
> 709/1 Fix it first. (I  don't like a public forum that might not work with
> all players' computer equipment.  I might support this if we provided a
> list of viewers with which the script must be compatible to be considered
> a public forum.)
I think the word you're looking for is SHELVE. If a prop. doesn't pass, but
a majority of the votes were either Yes or SHELVE, then the proposal moves
on to the next nweek so it can be fixed.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 20:48:12 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Naath Thabana?= <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 16 BALLOT
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 --- "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]> wrote: >
The following measures are on the ballot for nweek
> 16:
> 
> Proposal 691/0: Mentorship (Wild Card)
YES
> Proposal 692/0: Request for Comments (Wild Card)
YES
> Proposal 693/0: I can't do that! I love her! (Rob)
YES
> Proposal 694/0: Appeal to Overturn CFI 688 (The
> Administrator)
NO
> Proposal 695/1: Healthy Competition (Baron von
> Skippy)
YES
> Proposal 707/1: Time Freeze, my butt (The Voice)
YES
> Proposal 709/1: Delegation Means Delegation
> (Glotmorf)YES
> Proposal 710/0: Sing When You're Winning (The
> Administrator)
YES
> Proposal 711/0: There's No Style In Deficit Spending
> (M-Tek)
NO
> Proposal 713/1: Club Clarification (Wild Card)
YES
> Proposal 714/1: Less is More - Grems. (Glotmorf)
YES
> Proposal 715/1: Neatening Up Gnomes (Wonko)
YES
> Proposal 716/0: The Second Mouse Gets The Cheese
> (Rob)
YES
> Proposal 717/0: Jumping through HOOPs (Wonko)
NO
> Proposal 718/0: Slime, Inflatable Women, etc.
> (Wonko)
YES
> Proposal 719/0: Violent green. (The Reality
Police)YES
> Proposal 720/0: interesting? (Naath)
YES
> Proposal 722/1: Nweek 16 Hole Plugs (Glotmorf)
YES
> Proposal 723/0: And the Children Shall Lead
> (Glotmorf)
YES (because I want to see what it does)
> Proposal 724/0: The Casino (bd)
NO
> Proposal 725/0: LOGAS cleanup (bd)
NO 
> Proposal 726/0: Now you see me, now you don't! (The
> Voice)
YES
> Proposal 729/1: Exorcism of much evil (bd)
YES
> Proposal 730/0: Definitions (Wonko)
YES
> Proposal 731/0: Bandwidth Pools (Wonko)
NO
> Proposal 732/0: The PIG v2.0 (Wonko)
YES
> Proposal 733/0: Boxes (Wonko)
YES
> Proposal 734/0: Repeat as Needed (M-Tek)
NO
> Proposal 735/0: Stand Still! (Ed Murphy)
NO
> Proposal 736/0: Our physical shells are rotting.
> (The Reality Police)
YES
> Proposal 738/0: R-E-S-P-E-C-T (The Voice)
YES
> Proposal 739/0: Cleaning up Wonko's mess (The Voice)
YES
> Proposal 740/0: A Raise for Mr. A (The Voice)
YES
> Proposal 741/0: More Club Stuff (Wild Card)
NO

Naath
>  

==Like duct tape the force is, a light side and a dark side it has, holds the universe together it does, hmm.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

From: "B Nomic sequence bot" <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Sequence number bot.
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 20:30:25 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
>  I've written a prototype sequence number bot, that sends replys to
> things it gets mailed which contain commands it recognises to
> spoon-discuss (I can make this spoon-business if wanted).
> 
>  If you tell it
> 
> #proposal
This proposal has number 37/0
> 
> #cfi
This cfi has number 38/0
> 
> or 
> 
> #number
This object has number 39/0
> 
>  then it'll reply... (like this).
> 
>  WC.
> 

To: [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Sequence number bot.
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 20:30:18 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 I've written a prototype sequence number bot, that sends replys to
things it gets mailed which contain commands it recognises to
spoon-discuss (I can make this spoon-business if wanted).

 If you tell it

#proposal

#cfi

or 

#number

 then it'll reply... (like this).

 WC.

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 23:47:16 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Wild Card's votes
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/25/02 at 4:05 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>PROP  VOTE  SCORE  COMM
>691   YES   -
>692   ABS   -      can't bring my self to vote no on my own
>693   YES   -      seems right
>694   YES   -      I think this will do nowt, but...
>695   YES   -      sounds good
>707   ABS   -      hmm...
>709   YES   -      the hell yes. (want a ser. num. bot?)
>710   YES   -      looks good
>711   YES   -      <grin>
>713   YES   -
>714   YES   -      guess so
>715   YES   -      this too
>716   YES   -      Hmm...
>717   NO    -      Scam?
>718   YES   -      :)
>719   ABS   -      Don't know.  Don't care
>720   YES   -      Should only exist if 719's rule does.
>722   YES   -      ...
>723   YES   12     Not much use, but *shrug*
>724   ABS   -      I'll not play in this game!
>725   YES   -      
>726   YES   -      :)
>729   YES   -      Die!!!
>730   YES   -      Sounds good
>731   NO    -      Don't agree with way this is done
>732   YES   -      Nice one
>735   YES   -      Is right
>736   NO    -      Not gen.
>738   YES   -
>739   YES   -
>740   YES   -      Why not?
>741   YES   -      :)

Did you mean to not vote on proposals 733 and 734?

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 00:08:50 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The first non-Nomic-related e-mail over
  this forum... Whee.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/26/02 at 11:53 PM Alex Truelsen wrote:

>Not Nomic-related, and thus far, far more important than anything ever 
>written here. Here's the lowdown:
>
>I was notified from one of the people in my address book of a virus e had 
>contracted:  Sure enough my address book was infected, which means yours 
>will be also.  I have the fix below.
>
>According to the contact who alerted me, er very updated McAfee virus 
>checker did not catch it, nor did my Norton. The virus (called
>jdbgmgr.exe) 
>is not deleted by Norton or McAfee Anti-virus systems.
>The virus sits quietly for 14 days before damaging the system.  It's sent 
>automatically by the messenger and by the Address Book, whether or not you 
>sent emails to your contacts. I have checked, found it, and deleted it.
>
>Here's how to check for the virus and how to get rid of it:
>
>DO THIS:
>1.  Go to Start, Find, or Search option
>2.  In the files/folder option, write the name jdbgmgr.exe
>3.  Be sure you search your "C" drive
>4.  Click "find now"
>5.  The virus has a teddy bear icon with the name jdbgmgr.exe
>DO NOT OPEN IT!
>6.  Right click and delete it.  It will then go to the Recycle Bin
>7.  Go to the Recycle bin and delete it there as well.
>IMPORTANT
>If you find the virus, you must contact all the people in your address
>book 
>so they can eradicate it in their own address books. Gosh, this is
>exciting- 
>there's no fix, just a repair. Remember to follow the above steps for a 
>long, long time, as I'm sure this thing will ricochet around ad
>infinitum... 
>If I find the creator, I will make er life very, very painful- I will
>force 
>em to read and write an analysis of evre spoon-discuss message that is
>sent, 
>until this game folds, at which point, I'll start em over with the first 
>messages... Muahaha.
>
>                                            Cheers,
>                                              BvS

Okay, I found it on my machine, yes, but what "address book" are you talking about?  Do you mean Outlook?  I have Outlook, but don't use it; does that mean I haven't relayed it?

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 00:14:45 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Physical Law/Mutable Rule
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/25/02 at 7:50 PM Dan Waldron wrote:

>Here's draft.
>
>Defining Rule
>{{
>There exist three types of rules: Physical Laws, Mutable Rules, and
>Charter Rules.
>
>Physical Laws take precedence over all other rules.  No Mutable Rule or
>Charter Rule can declare an exception to any Physical Law.
>
>Charter Rules defer to all other rules.  No Charter Rule may declare an
>exception to any other rule.  The subsetset of entities to which a Charter
>Rule or group of Charter Rules applies must be specified by Mutable Rule
>of Physical Law.
>}}

First of all, welcome back. :)

Regarding "Charter Rules"...Whilst doing the family thang over the weekend I got well underway on a Less-is-More-ism for Societies, which should both simplify things and clean up some of the issues Wonko's been jackhammering into the walls...It might make an impact on what you're considering a Charter Rule.

Aside from that, I haven't studied your proposal in too much depth, and done the cross-reference thing and all -- did you really do a total ruleset markup?  someone buy this boy a respect point -- but if you're worried about it failing, why not do a sort of placeholder rule with a grandfather clause, that defines the classes of rules, and gradually shift rules into the classes?

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 00:56:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Physical Law/Mutable Rule
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> First of all, welcome back. :)
> 
> Regarding "Charter Rules"...Whilst doing the family thang over the
> weekend I got well underway on a Less-is-More-ism for Societies, which
> should both simplify things and clean up some of the issues Wonko's
> been jackhammering into the walls...It might make an impact on what
> you're considering a Charter Rule.

Charter rules are the least important part of my rule split.  I'll be
happy to adapt them to suit the society system, however it turns out.

Actually one idea that I've been working on is to scrap the definition of
Mutable Rules and make the Mutable Rules a specific instance of a Charter
Ruleset which applies to all players.
> 
> Aside from that, I haven't studied your proposal in too much depth,
> and done the cross-reference thing and all -- did you really do a
> total ruleset markup?  someone buy this boy a respect point -- but if
> you're worried about it failing, why not do a sort of placeholder rule
> with a grandfather clause, that defines the classes of rules, and
> gradually shift rules into the classes?

That's a good idea.  My plan breaks a lot of rules in weird ways.  For
example, Entropy, which would be perfectly fine as a Physical Law refers
to Proposals, which otherwise could be entirely dealt with by the Mutable
Rules.  So now I have to rewrite Entropy.  If I use a placeholder rule
then Entropy, and others like it, can wait.

Dan

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 06:07:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The first non-Nomic-related e-mail over this
 forum... Whee.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 26 May 2002, Alex Truelsen wrote:

> 5.  The virus has a teddy bear icon with the name jdbgmgr.exe

DO NOT DO THIS.

jdbgmgr.exe is part of the Java runtime environment for MS Internet
Explorer, and the "teddy bear" virus hoax has been circulating for a while
now.

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/jdbgmgr.exe.file.hoax.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q322993

...dave "who doesn't even run Windows and is thus effectively immune"

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 02:08:48 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The first
  non-Nomic-related e-mail over this forum... Whee.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/27/02 at 6:07 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Sun, 26 May 2002, Alex Truelsen wrote:
>
>> 5.  The virus has a teddy bear icon with the name jdbgmgr.exe
>
>DO NOT DO THIS.
>
>jdbgmgr.exe is part of the Java runtime environment for MS Internet
>Explorer, and the "teddy bear" virus hoax has been circulating for a while
>now.
>
>http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/jdbgmgr.exe.file.hoax.html
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q322993
>
>...dave "who doesn't even run Windows and is thus effectively immune"

Aw shit.

Can someone email me the damn file? :)

And is there any chance I can Kick the Baron in the Ass for this?

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 06:12:34 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The first  non-Nomic-related
 e-mail over this forum... Whee.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, 27 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> Can someone email me the damn file? :)

If you accidentally delete that file, the recommended solution is to just
reinstall the whole Java virtual machine package -- the precise URL is in
that Microsoft support link.

...dave

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 02:30:17 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Society redo
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[ Please note that this is a spoon-discuss proposal, and hasn't been submitted officially yet, if for no other reason than that my bandwidth is used up for now...also I'd like some commentary.

The general idea of the following is to create a single rule to encompass Societies, and to allow them to easily be set up, especially if they use something called Standard Methods -- prefab ways of doing things that have the force of rule, that can be referenced by a Society's internal rule.  The point of this is to allow Societies certain predefined ways of changing the gamestate, which can be modified and refined independent of the Society that uses them.  Societies don't have to use Standard Methods, but can't create a gamestate-modifying internal rule without them.

I'm going to grandfather existing Societies by giving them the means to update their charters.

Again, commentary is welcomed. ]]

{{ _Less is More: Clubs_

Change the text of Rule 578 to the text marked at start and end with @@@.

@@@
There exist game entities called Societies, also known as Clubs.

A. Definition

A Society is a group of one or more entities known as Members of the Society.  A Society may convey certain privileges, restrictions or responsibilities to its Members, subject to the rules of the game.

B. Society Rules

A Society may have internal rules that are binding upon its Members.  Internal rules defer to game rules.

A Society's internal rules consist of public rules and private rules.  Public rules must be readable by all Players in the game, and are enforcible at the game level.  Private rules are freeform; maintenance and enforcement of private rules is the responsibility of the Members of the Society.

A public rule can be a reference to a Standard Method.  A Standard Method is a rule defined with this game rule that regulates a particular action.  A Standard Method is not an internal rule of a Society, and is not binding upon a Society or its Members, unless a public rule of that Society references it.  A Society's public rules can regulate actions over and above what cited Standard Methods regulate, but those public rules defer to game rules.

A Standard Method must be uniquely identified within this game rule, and must be unambiguously referenced by a Society's public rule for it to be binding.

C. Society Charter

A Society must have a Charter, which contains its public rules.  The Charter is considered a game document, and is maintained by the Administrator in a collection of Charters.

A Society's Charter can only be modified by the Society or its Members if the Society has a public rule stating the method for doing so.

Standard Methods for Modifying a Society's Charter are:

C.1. Unanimous Consent

In the first half of a given nweek, a Member of the Society may propose a modification to the Society's Charter on the public forum.  If all Members of the Society then, in the same nweek as the modification was proposed, state in the public forum that they agree to the modification, the modification is applied to the Charter.

D. Membership

An entity can be a Member of one or more Societies.  A Society must have at least one Member upon its creation; if a Society ever has no Members, it ceases to exist.

D.1. Joining a Society

An entity may join a Society if the Society's public rules permit em to do so.  If a Society's public rules provide a set of circumstances whereby an entity may become a Member, those circumstances must be met before the entity becomes a Member.

Membership in a Society is voluntary.  An entity is not required to become a Member of a Society, and may refuse membership if offered or declared by the Society by stating said refusal on a public forum.  However, once an entity has been offered membership or has been declared a Member, and has performed an action as a Member, e is considered to have joined the Society, and its internal rules are binding upon em.

Standard Methods for Joining a Society are:

D.1.1. Open Enrollment

Any Player who is not a Member of the Society may issue a Request for Admittance
(RFA) to the public forum. If a majority of the Members of the Society deny the RFA within four ndays of its issuance, then the RFA is destroyed and has no effect.
Otherwise, the Player who issued the RFA becomes a Member of the Society.

D.1.2. Closed Enrollment

Any Player who is not a Member of the Society may issue a Request for Admittance
(RFA) to the public forum. If any Member of the Society denies the RFA within four ndays of its issuance, then the RFA is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the Player who issued the RFA becomes a Member of the Society.

D.1.3. Unanimous Invitation

A Member of the Society may extend an Invitation on the public forum to a Player who is not a Member.  If all Members of the Society state their agreement with the Invitation, and if the Player who is Invited states that e accepts the Invitation, e becomes a Member of the Society.

D.2. Leaving a Society

Membership in a Society is voluntary.  An entity who is considered to have joined a Society is not required to remain a Member.  A Society's public rules may regulate the method for a Member to leave the Society, and said method is binding upon the departing member, but it cannot prohibit leaving the Society altogether.

Standard Methods for Leaving a Society are:

(none at this time)

D.3. Ousting a Member

A Society can Oust a Member (terminate said Member's membership; cause said Member to cease to be a Member) if the Society's public rules state the circumstances under which Ousting can happen.  Said circumstances may include aspects of the gamestate, aspects of a Member, actions of Members, or a combination of these.

Standard Methods for Ousting a Member are:

D.3.1. Open Ousting

Any Player who is a Member of the Society may issue a Writ of Exclusion (WOE)
towards any other Member to the public forum. If a majority of the Members of
the Society other than the target of the WOE deny the WOE within four ndays of
its issuance, then the WOE is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the
Member who was targeted by the WOE ceases to be a Member of the Society. Such
Oustings take effect at the beginning of the next Voting Period.

D.3.2. Closed Ousting

Any Player who is a Member of the Society may issue a Writ of Exclusion (WOE)
towards any other Member to the public forum. If any Member of the Society other
than the target of the WOE denies the WOE within four ndays of its issuance,
then the WOE is destroyed and has no effect. Otherwise, the Member who was
targeted by the WOE ceases to be a Member of the Society. Such evictions take
effect at the beginning of the next Voting Period.

E. Resource Pools

A Society may have Pools of resources if the Society has a public rule or rules declaring a Pool exists, and stating the methods for transferring resources to and from the Pool.  For a Member to transfer resources to the Pool, or for the Society to transfer resources from the Pool to a Member, that Member must be able to transfer that type of resource to another entity without restriction.

A Society does not begin with any resources in Pools.  However, resources may be added to Pools or transferred into Pools by a proposal.

If a Society ceases to exist, any resources in the Society's Pools are destroyed.

Standard Methods for Resource Pools are:

E.1. Score Pools

The Society can have a Pool of score points.  This method requires the Society to have public rules stating under what circumstances score points are transferred to and from the Pool.

E.2. Vote Pools

The Society can have a Pool of single-ballot-item proxy votes.  A proxy vote in the Pool consists of the name of the Member in whose name the proxy vote is cast.  A single proxy vote can only be used on a single ballot item.  If a Pooled proxy vote is used, it overrides whatever vote the Member emself cast on the ballot item the proxy vote is cast on.  This method requires the Society to have public rules stating under what circumstances proxy votes are transferred to and from the Pool.

F. Society Proposals

Societies can submit proposals to the game ballot just as Players can; these are referred to as Society Proposals, or Club Props. If a Society Proposal passes, the Members of the proposing Society each get the same dimensional changes as a Player would, times (1/(number of Members in the Society)), rounded up. All Members of a Society auto-vote "yes" on any proposal the Society submits. 

If a rule restricts the existence or content of a proposal based on a Player dimension, the most advantageous dimension of all Society members with regards to that rule is used.

Proposals that a Society submits count as (1/(number of Members in the Society)) proposals against each Member's bandwidth limit. 

For it to submit proposals, a Society must meet these standards: 

a.) The number of Players in the Society must be less than half the number of Players in the game. 

b.) The rules that say how a Society decides to submit a proposal are public rules. 

c.) Each Player in the Society must have (1/(number of Players in the Society)) free in eir bandwidth limit for each Society proposal made. 

If a Player leaves a Society, and the Society made Society Proposals earlier that same nweek while the Player was a Member, those Society Proposals still count against the Player's Bandwidth, and the ballot results of those Society Proposals will still affect the Player's Score, Charm and Entropy. The Player will not, however, auto-vote Yes for the Society Proposals. 

Standard Methods for Submitting Society Proposals are:

F.1. Open Proposing

In the first six ndays of an nweek, a Member of the Society may propose a Society Proposal to the public forum.  If a majority of Members other than the proposing Member deny the Society Proposal in the same nweek as the proposal is proposed, the proposal is removed from the ballot and has no effect.

F.2. Closed Proposing

In the first six ndays of an nweek, a Member of the Society may propose a Society Proposal to the public forum.  If any Member other than the proposing Member denies the Society Proposal in the same nweek as the proposal is proposed, the proposal is removed from the ballot and has no effect.

F.3. Unanimous Proposing

In the first six ndays of an nweek, a Member of the Society may propose a Society Proposal to the public forum.  In the same nweek that the proposal is proposed, all Members of the Society must agree to the proposal in the public forum; otherwise the proposal is removed from the ballot and has no effect.

G. Creating a Society

A Society may be created by a proposal, or by a Player action.

G.1. Creating a Society with a Proposal

A proposal may create a Society by stating the Society's Charter.  The Charter must include either a list of the Society's initial Members, or criteria for determining the Society's initial Members.  If the criteria method is used, the criteria must cover at least one existing entity.

Any Player may, prior to passage of the proposal creating the Society, refuse on the public forum to be an initial Member of the Society to be created.  Said Player is removed from the initial Member list or barred from the initial Member criteria.

If at the time of passage of the proposal the resulting Society would have no Members, the Charter is discarded and the Society does not exist.

G.2. Creating a Society by a Player Action

A Player may, no more than once per nweek, in the first five ndays of an nweek, declare a Society by stating eir intent to do so, along with the Society's Charter.  

The Charter must include a list of the Society's initial Members.  Players in the list other than the Player declaring the Society must state their acceptance of membership into the Society in the same nweek as the declaration, or will be dropped from the list of initial Members.

If, at the end of the nweek in which the Society was declared, a proposal that nweek has barred it from existing, or the Society would have no Members, the Charter is discarded and the Society does not exist.

H. Destroying a Society

A Society may be destroyed by a proposal, by the leaving or Ousting of all its Members, or, if the Society has a public rule stating the method for it, by the actions of its Members.  A destroyed Society's Charter is discarded, and the Society ceases to exist.

If the proposal destroying the Society, or the Society's public rules for the destruction of the Society, do not state how the Society's Pooled resources are to be disposed of, they are destroyed.

If the proposal destroying the Society, or the Society's public rules for the destruction of the Society, do not state that its proposed but unimplemented Society Proposals remain on the ballot, the Society's unimplemented Society Proposals are removed from the ballot and have no effect.

Standard Methods for Destroying a Society are:

H.1. Unanimous Dissolution

Any time prior to the end of a nweek, a Member of the Society can declare the Society's destruction on the public forum.  If all Members of the Society agree to the destruction in the same nweek as the declaration, the Society is immediately destroyed.
@@@

Repeal Rules 630 and 631.

If a rule entitled "Bandwidth Pools" exists, repeal it.

Add to the Charter of each currently existing Society the text:

"This Society uses the Unanimous Consent Standard Method for Modifying its Charter."

Give half the points earned by the passage of this proposal to Wonko, in recognition of my shameless exploitation of eir Bandwidth Pools proposal.

}}

"My.  That's a big one."
-- Dirty Harry

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 02:38:36 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Physical Law/Mutable Rule
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/25/02 at 7:56 PM Wonko wrote:

>We're well ahead of you there. Both Gremlins and Gnomes are, if the
>respective proposals pass, new victims of the 'Less is More' movement. And
>someone (Glotmorf?) was talking about collecting the other stuff into a
>master rule too.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Yeah, that was me.  I'm thinking Proposals, The Grid and its subsystems, dimension stuff, Administrator functions, Ministries, and something that combines The Clock and timing of events.

It'd be mind-blowing if we could reduce the game to fewer rules than it started with...:)

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 02:58:02 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pestilence
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/25/02 at 2:09 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>> On 5/25/02 at 12:20 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>> 
>> >> Buying a Gun and Armor requires Landing.  Are you Landing?
>> >
>> > I can't see that in the rules...
>> >
>> > WC.
>> 
>> Sixth paragraph of r493: "DimShips can be landed at any time, and must
>be=
>>  landed when adding equipment or conducting repairs."
>> 
> So it does.
>
> It does not say in r635 that Guns and Arm. are `equipment' though.
>Were I Wonk. I'd claim that this meant they wern't.
>
> As it is I just say:
>
> I do not Land.
>
> WC.

Well, I've got the American Heritage Dictionary listing "equipment" as "Something with which a person, an organization, or a thing is equipped."  I'd say offhand that if a Gun and Armor are bought for a DimShip, that constitutes equipping it, no?

We can go on with the word "equip": "1a. To supply with necessities such as tools or provisions. b. To furnish with the qualities necessary for performance."  Given that a Gun is necessary for performing shooting and Armor is necessary for performing protection from a shot, it sure seems like you're equipping your DimShip.

Dude...you've already voted, and it's almost the end of the nweek, which means you'll launch real soon...

						Glotmorf

From: "Ed Murphy" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal:  __Stand Still!__
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 01:10:02 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Glotmorf wrote:

> >Proposal:  __Stand Still!__
> >
> >Amend Rule 128 (Judgement) by appending this text:
> >{{
> >     A Judge shall choose eir response according to the Statement's truth
> >     or falsity at the time of the Call, not at the time of eir Judgement.
> >}}

> I have a problem with this. (Sorry for not responding before proposing
> closed.) My problem is, what about overlapping CFIs, which address issues
> that have to do with one another?  Suppose CFI X addresses a set of
> circumstances, and CFI Y addresses a different set of circumstances, and
> CFI gets judged on, and the result changes the set of circumstances CFI Y
> is based on.  CFI Y is no longer applicable to the situation, because the
> situation's changed.  Yet, per your proposal, CFI Y will still have to be
> judged as per circumstances at the time CFI Y was made, which was before
> CFI X's judgment changed everything.

Then you explicitly refer to a time in one or more statements.

Example:
  "Murphy is not a player"
vs.
  "Murphy was not a player at the end of nweek 16"

-- 
Ed Murphy <[email-masked]>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pestilence 
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:33:05 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Dude...you've already voted, and it's almost the end of the nweek, which>  means you'll launch real soon...
> 
 If I do not have guns and arm. then I land, buy guns and arm. and
then launch with the same bouy. and ball. that I tried to launch with
last time.

 WC.

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:37:41 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: LOGAS additions
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 09:24:54AM +0100, Naath Thabana wrote:
> <proposal>
> add "Fake virus warnings" to the LOGAS
> </proposal>

Okay, so Naath beat me to it. But my proposal is more general.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 15:24:34 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The first non-Nomic-related e-mail over this
	forum... Whee.
From: Dan <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Alex Truelsen,

> 2.  In the files/folder option, write the name jdbgmgr.exe

Um, dude, that's a java debugger manager...

-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 15:41:15 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Pestilence
From: Daniel Lepage <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/25/02 at 2:09 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> 
>>> On 5/25/02 at 12:20 PM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Buying a Gun and Armor requires Landing.  Are you Landing?
>>>> 
>>>> I can't see that in the rules...
>>>> 
>>>> WC.
>>> 
>>> Sixth paragraph of r493: "DimShips can be landed at any time, and must
>> be>>> landed when adding equipment or conducting repairs."
>>> 
>> So it does.
>> 
>> It does not say in r635 that Guns and Arm. are `equipment' though.
>> Were I Wonk. I'd claim that this meant they wern't.
>> 
>> As it is I just say:
>> 
>> I do not Land.
>> 
>> WC.
> 
> Well, I've got the American Heritage Dictionary listing "equipment" as
> "Something with which a person, an organization, or a thing is equipped."  I'd
> say offhand that if a Gun and Armor are bought for a DimShip, that constitutes
> equipping it, no?
> 
> We can go on with the word "equip": "1a. To supply with necessities such as
> tools or provisions. b. To furnish with the qualities necessary for
> performance."  Given that a Gun is necessary for performing shooting and Armor
> is necessary for performing protection from a shot, it sure seems like you're
> equipping your DimShip.

Ah, but it doesn't say 'adding equipment to the DimShip' now, does it? ;)

-- 
Wonko
is just kidding

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Website 
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 00:20:28 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Ummm... As of earlier today, the website could not be accessed and the
> mailing list did nothing... The mailing list is back, and the website can
> now be accessed, but all it says is

 I wasn't having any problem with the list earlier when I sent my
message out.  And the site was working (if slow).

> Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
> '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/g6/www/inc/dbcon.php on line 2
> Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
> '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111)

 I'm getting that now...

 WC.

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:32:48 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: test
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Testing what happens with email when the host's down...Please ignore.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 19:35:21 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: DimShip action, pt. 1 
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> Immediately following the next launch of my dimship,
>> I then shoot at Wonko.
> 
> I do this too.
> 
> If a choice of ships I shoot the score ship.
> 
> WC.

>> Immediately at the beginning of the next nweek, I shoot Wonko again.
> 
> I too. (score ship if can)
> 
> WC.

You can't - Clock's off, and you need to be near me. ;)

> Immediately following the next launch of my dimship, I set my buoyancy to 10
> respect and my ballast to 60 entropy.
> 
> I then shoot at Wonko.
> 
> Glotmorf
> 

> Immediately at the beginning of the next nweek, I shoot Wonko again.
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 

And you can't because I'm not there anymore. ;)

-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 19:37:37 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Website 
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Jonathan David Amery,

>> Ummm... As of earlier today, the website could not be accessed and the
>> mailing list did nothing... The mailing list is back, and the website can
>> now be accessed, but all it says is
> 
> I wasn't having any problem with the list earlier when I sent my
> message out.  And the site was working (if slow).

That was earlier; I lost it around 5 and only just got it back.

>> Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
>> '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/g6/www/inc/dbcon.php on line 2
>> Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
>> '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111)
> 
> I'm getting that now...
> 
> WC.

It's changed. Now I'm getting:

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: mysql_pconnect() in
/home/g6/www/inc/dbcon.php on line 2

I don't suppose either Dave or Joel know what's up?
-- 
Wonko

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Website 
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 00:40:56 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
> 
> >> Ummm... As of earlier today, the website could not be accessed and the
> >> mailing list did nothing... The mailing list is back, and the website can
> >> now be accessed, but all it says is
> > 
> > I wasn't having any problem with the list earlier when I sent my
> > message out.  And the site was working (if slow).
> 
> That was earlier; I lost it around 5 and only just got it back.

 Ahh, I wasn't watching then...
 
> >> Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
> >> '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/g6/www/inc/dbcon.php on line 2
> >> Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
> >> '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111)
> > 
> > I'm getting that now...
> > 
> > WC.
> 
> It's changed. Now I'm getting:
> 
> Fatal error: Call to undefined function: mysql_pconnect() in
> /home/g6/www/inc/dbcon.php on line 2

 Yeah, me too.

> I don't suppose either Dave or Joel know what's up?

 I've mailed [email-masked] (probably Joel?).

 WC.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Website 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:45:27 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake Wonko:
> 
> Ummm... As of earlier today, the website could not be accessed and the
> mailing list did nothing... The mailing list is back, and the website can
> now be accessed, but all it says is
> 
> Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
> '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/g6/www/inc/dbcon.php on line 2
> Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
> '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111)
> 
> I get the distinct impression that all is not well... Am I correct?
> 
> -- 
> Wonko

That's because I'm in the midst of upgrading to RH 7.3---things should 
mostly be working again now.

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Website 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 19:10:36 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I said:
> Thus spake Wonko:
> > 
> > Ummm... As of earlier today, the website could not be accessed and the
> > mailing list did nothing... The mailing list is back, and the website can
> > now be accessed, but all it says is
> > 
> > Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
> > '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/g6/www/inc/dbcon.php on line 2
> > Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
> > '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111)
> > 
> > I get the distinct impression that all is not well... Am I correct?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Wonko
> 
> That's because I'm in the midst of upgrading to RH 7.3---things should 
> mostly be working again now.

All the things I know were broken during the upgrade are now fixed. As for 
the things that I'm not aware are broken, well, hopefully they're fixed 
now, too.

If you liked the problems today, just wait until I switch the mailing list 
over to Mailman. Oh, boy! :)

-- 
J.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: list
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 01:05:42 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 On the principle of redundancy I've created a mailing list.  Feel
free to use it or not as appropriate.

 One can subscribe by pointing a webbrowser at:

    http://www.ysolde.ucam.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bnomic-private

 WC.

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:18:44 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Winning v2.0
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/27/02 at 6:32 PM Wonko wrote:

>Well, I sent this once, but I didn't get it back... I'll try again.

It showed up in my email before my stuff did, so it probably showed up that way in the list too.  My bad for trying to wait until as close to the end of the nweek as possible...

>I set my Dimship to 100 Score Buoyancy, 100 BAC Ballast.

I see a couple problems with your master plan.  The first one is here: by dropping your Entropy buoyancy, you instantly raised your Entropy to 41.  That makes the rest of this message illegal, since all of the sentences that follow this one contain words longer than one syllable. (There was a reason why I broke my dimship actions into three messages.)

>I buy 5 new DimShips. [[Nowhere does it limit the number of DimShips
>players
>may have :) ]]

I know.  I was counting on that to pick up a hot spare, so that I can drydock a ship to get it fixed and still dimcruise.

>I name my five new DimShips Entropy Ship 1, Entropy Ship 2, Entropy Ship 3,
>Entropy Ship 4 and Entropy Ship 5, respectively.
>If I still have a score of at least 100, I buy another DimShip, naming it
>the Score Ship. [[I can't load Nomic.Net, so I don't know my Score]]
>At the end of the nweek, I launch all five Entropy Ships at 100 Entropy
>Buoyancy, no Ballast, and the Score Ship at 1 Entropy buoyancy, 99 Score
>Buoyancy, no Ballast.
>
>[[
>Here's what I believe will happen:
>
>At the end of the nweek, thanks to my Ships, Global Entropy hits 500.

The second problem is here, and it comes from Rule 493:

"A DimShip is capable of carrying a Player through DimSpace by taking on virtual dimensional values: Buoyancy (positive virtual value) and Ballast (negative virtual value)."

Note the singular, and the use of the word "carrying".  Without using physics that make my head hurt, I don't see any way that multiple DimShips can carry you at the same time.  Therefore, even though you have five dimships with 100 entropy buoyancy each, it is my opinion that they don't give you more than 100 entropy buoyancy at any given time.

>The Grid ignites. Everything is swept off it.
>Everyone gets 10 points and loses all Entropy.
>Meanwhile, my DimShips stay at a total of 500 Entropy.
>So it all happens again. And again. And again.
>
>What happens next depends on what passes and what fails.
>If the admin's 'Sing' proposal fails, then everyone keeps gaining 10 points
>at a time until someone crosses 1000 (me). I get a win, and all scores
>become zero. Everyone continues to gain 10 points at a time until someone
>crosses 1000. I've got 199 DimShip Points, so I'll get there first (unless
>I'm mistaken, and I'm not rich enough to buy the second Score Ship, in
>which
>case anyone else who has 100 Score on eir Dimship comes with me) I win
>again, scores are reset, scores rise again, etc. I get an infinite number
>of
>wins.
>
>If 'Sing' passes, and so does 'Time Freeze' (The Voice), then the Clock
>stops after the first time I win, and I intend to shut off my Entropy Ships
>during the Clock break, so all that happens is I Win.
>
>The above is the most likely thing to happen, by my counts.
>
>If 'Sing' passes, but 'Time Freeze' doesn't, then we get caught in an
>infinite loop, as whenever the clock turns On I immediately win, and so the
>Clock turns off again, and there's nothing anyone can do about it except
>call in r0. But I think 'Freeze' has gotten more yes-votes than 'Sing' so
>that's unlikely.
>
>Now who's 60 points behind the rest of the game? ;)
>]]
>
>-- 
>Wonko
>wonders why e didn't do this earlier...

On the upside -- and this is the part I really like -- you're out at least 500 points, and possibly 600. :)

Still, it was a very nice try.  Charge an applause to my account.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:28:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Winning v2.0
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I set my Dimship to 100 Score Buoyancy, 100 BAC Ballast.
> I buy 5 new DimShips. [[Nowhere does it limit the number of DimShips players
> may have :) ]]
> I name my five new DimShips Entropy Ship 1, Entropy Ship 2, Entropy Ship 3,
> Entropy Ship 4 and Entropy Ship 5, respectively.

....

> -- 
> Wonko
> wonders why e didn't do this earlier...
> 

You are assuming that displacement due to your Entropy 2 is applied to
your virtual position created by Entropy 1.  My reading of the rule was
that dimensional displacement is applied to real player dimensions, not
virtual player dimensions.

This might, however, allow you to exist in multiple places at once.  I'm
not sure how we will deal with that.

Dan Waldron ICQ 57894467

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:30:13 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: DimShip action, pt. 1
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/27/02 at 7:35 PM Wonko wrote:

>> Immediately following the next launch of my dimship, I set my buoyancy
>to 10
>> respect and my ballast to 60 entropy.
>> 
>> I then shoot at Wonko.
>> 
>> Glotmorf
>> 
>
>> Immediately at the beginning of the next nweek, I shoot Wonko again.
>> 
>> Glotmorf
>> 
>> 
>
>And you can't because I'm not there anymore. ;)
>
>-- 
>Wonko

This would have worked if my style hadn't been so high.  I only needed four out of seven dimensions.

Is that why you gave me the scarf again? :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:07:58 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Winning v2.0
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/27/02 at 6:32 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Well, I sent this once, but I didn't get it back... I'll try again.
> 
> It showed up in my email before my stuff did, so it probably showed up that
> way in the list too.  My bad for trying to wait until as close to the end of
> the nweek as possible...
> 
>> I set my Dimship to 100 Score Buoyancy, 100 BAC Ballast.
> 
> I see a couple problems with your master plan.  The first one is here: by
> dropping your Entropy buoyancy, you instantly raised your Entropy to 41.  That
> makes the rest of this message illegal, since all of the sentences that follow
> this one contain words longer than one syllable. (There was a reason why I
> broke my dimship actions into three messages.)

No, I can't send msgs when my Entropy is high. At the time I sent the msg,
my Entropy was low, so it was legal. The actions didn't take effect until
they reached the forum, by which time the msg had already been posted.

>> I buy 5 new DimShips. [[Nowhere does it limit the number of DimShips
>> players
>> may have :) ]]
> 
> I know.  I was counting on that to pick up a hot spare, so that I can drydock
> a ship to get it fixed and still dimcruise.
> 
>> I name my five new DimShips Entropy Ship 1, Entropy Ship 2, Entropy Ship 3,
>> Entropy Ship 4 and Entropy Ship 5, respectively.
>> If I still have a score of at least 100, I buy another DimShip, naming it
>> the Score Ship. [[I can't load Nomic.Net, so I don't know my Score]]
>> At the end of the nweek, I launch all five Entropy Ships at 100 Entropy
>> Buoyancy, no Ballast, and the Score Ship at 1 Entropy buoyancy, 99 Score
>> Buoyancy, no Ballast.
>> 
>> [[
>> Here's what I believe will happen:
>> 
>> At the end of the nweek, thanks to my Ships, Global Entropy hits 500.
> 
> The second problem is here, and it comes from Rule 493:
> 
> "A DimShip is capable of carrying a Player through DimSpace by taking on
> virtual dimensional values: Buoyancy (positive virtual value) and Ballast
> (negative virtual value)."
> 
> Note the singular, and the use of the word "carrying".  Without using physics
> that make my head hurt, I don't see any way that multiple DimShips can carry
> you at the same time.  Therefore, even though you have five dimships with 100
> entropy buoyancy each, it is my opinion that they don't give you more than 100
> entropy buoyancy at any given time.

The singular implies that that's what a dimship does. With multiple
Dimships, each one fulfills its function. You're making the mistake of
forcing your own ideas of what should be onto what is. You speak of using
'physics that make my head hurt' as the only way Multiple DimShips could be
employed, but there is no such thing as 'physics' in Nomic.

If you must project some semblance of real-world physics upon them, think of
them as little flying machines tied to me with strings. A dozen of them
could then pick something up and pull it twelve times as far as any one of
them could alone.

Although even that's not accurate, as there's no connection between DimShips
and any real-world analogy.

>> The Grid ignites. Everything is swept off it.
>> Everyone gets 10 points and loses all Entropy.
>> Meanwhile, my DimShips stay at a total of 500 Entropy.
>> So it all happens again. And again. And again.
>> 
>> What happens next depends on what passes and what fails.
>> If the admin's 'Sing' proposal fails, then everyone keeps gaining 10 points
>> at a time until someone crosses 1000 (me). I get a win, and all scores
>> become zero. Everyone continues to gain 10 points at a time until someone
>> crosses 1000. I've got 199 DimShip Points, so I'll get there first (unless
>> I'm mistaken, and I'm not rich enough to buy the second Score Ship, in
>> which
>> case anyone else who has 100 Score on eir Dimship comes with me) I win
>> again, scores are reset, scores rise again, etc. I get an infinite number
>> of
>> wins.
>> 
>> If 'Sing' passes, and so does 'Time Freeze' (The Voice), then the Clock
>> stops after the first time I win, and I intend to shut off my Entropy Ships
>> during the Clock break, so all that happens is I Win.
>> 
>> The above is the most likely thing to happen, by my counts.
>> 
>> If 'Sing' passes, but 'Time Freeze' doesn't, then we get caught in an
>> infinite loop, as whenever the clock turns On I immediately win, and so the
>> Clock turns off again, and there's nothing anyone can do about it except
>> call in r0. But I think 'Freeze' has gotten more yes-votes than 'Sing' so
>> that's unlikely.
>> 
>> Now who's 60 points behind the rest of the game? ;)
>> ]]
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
>> wonders why e didn't do this earlier...
> 
> On the upside -- and this is the part I really like -- you're out at least 500
> points, and possibly 600. :)
> 
> Still, it was a very nice try.  Charge an applause to my account.
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 

-- 
Wonko

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a great big kick in the ass, dum dum dum
 doo.
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:33:08 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[[ In order to ensure that this doesn't happen again... ]]

I propose:
{{ __snopes.com is your friend.__
Add "perpetuating an e-mail hoax" to the LOGAS.
}}

-Or not... How the hell was I supposed to know that was a hoax? (Don't 
answer that, I have a way now.) Perpetuating is one thing, but being an 
unknowing victim? Being CAUTIOUS? If you wish to attack people because they 
don't know the names of every file on their hard drive, and don't know of 
every hoax out there, then I think you're the one who needs the Kick in the 
Ass.-

                                            -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: LOGAS additions
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:35:35 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<proposal>
add "Fake virus warnings" to the LOGAS
</proposal>

Naath

-I repeat my previous statements, made to Rob.-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:36:11 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a
  great big kick in the ass, dum dum dum doo.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/27/02 at 10:33 PM Alex Truelsen wrote:

>[[ In order to ensure that this doesn't happen again... ]]
>
>I propose:
>{{ __snopes.com is your friend.__
>Add "perpetuating an e-mail hoax" to the LOGAS.
>}}
>
>-Or not... How the hell was I supposed to know that was a hoax? (Don't 
>answer that, I have a way now.) Perpetuating is one thing, but being an 
>unknowing victim? Being CAUTIOUS? If you wish to attack people because
>they 
>don't know the names of every file on their hard drive, and don't know of 
>every hoax out there, then I think you're the one who needs the Kick in
>the 
>Ass.-
>
>                                            -BvS-
>

So...you deleted your file too, then?

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:44:43 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a great
	big kick in the ass, dum dum dum doo.
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Alex Truelsen,

> [[ In order to ensure that this doesn't happen again... ]]
> 
> I propose:
> {{ __snopes.com is your friend.__
> Add "perpetuating an e-mail hoax" to the LOGAS.
> }}
> 
> -Or not... How the hell was I supposed to know that was a hoax? (Don't
> answer that, I have a way now.) Perpetuating is one thing, but being an
> unknowing victim? Being CAUTIOUS? If you wish to attack people because they
> don't know the names of every file on their hard drive, and don't know of
> every hoax out there, then I think you're the one who needs the Kick in the
> Ass.-
> 

You can't get kicked now, 'cuz it wasn't on the LOGAS when you did it. This
is for future hoax perpetuators.

And besides, the Admin can refuse to recognize Kicks if e thinks they're
unfounded. As long as you didn't mean to do it, e can save your ass, so to
speak.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:45:42 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Winning v2.0
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron,

>> I set my Dimship to 100 Score Buoyancy, 100 BAC Ballast.
>> I buy 5 new DimShips. [[Nowhere does it limit the number of DimShips players
>> may have :) ]]
>> I name my five new DimShips Entropy Ship 1, Entropy Ship 2, Entropy Ship 3,
>> Entropy Ship 4 and Entropy Ship 5, respectively.
> 
> ....
> 
>> -- 
>> Wonko
>> wonders why e didn't do this earlier...
>> 
> 
> You are assuming that displacement due to your Entropy 2 is applied to
> your virtual position created by Entropy 1.  My reading of the rule was
> that dimensional displacement is applied to real player dimensions, not
> virtual player dimensions.

But for the purposes of a second DimShip, the new, displaced dimensions
caused by my first DimShip *are* my real dimensions.

"If a player owns a DimShip and has launched it, then rules that check eir
dimension values will check the values of eir virtual dimensions."

If some other rule checks my dimension values, it will get my normal values,
plus the some of all virtual values affecting me, such as my six or seven
DimShips.

> This might, however, allow you to exist in multiple places at once.  I'm
> not sure how we will deal with that.

That would certainly be interesting, but I'm afraid it's not the case.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:44:35 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Winning v2.0
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/27/02 at 10:07 PM Wonko wrote:

>> I see a couple problems with your master plan.  The first one is here: by
>> dropping your Entropy buoyancy, you instantly raised your Entropy to 41.
> That
>> makes the rest of this message illegal, since all of the sentences that
>follow
>> this one contain words longer than one syllable. (There was a reason why
>I
>> broke my dimship actions into three messages.)
>
>No, I can't send msgs when my Entropy is high. At the time I sent the msg,
>my Entropy was low, so it was legal. The actions didn't take effect until
>they reached the forum, by which time the msg had already been posted.

Well, if we want to split hairs, the characters that contained the first action hit the forum before the rest of the characters did; therefore, the action took effect before the rest of the message reached the forum.

If we REALLY want to split hairs, r440 doesn't talk about whether you can send messages; it says "all eir messages posted to the public forum".  God help us if that could be thought to include messages that had already been posted...but if it did, that would include the message that causes your Entropy to be too high.

>>> [[
>>> Here's what I believe will happen:
>>> 
>>> At the end of the nweek, thanks to my Ships, Global Entropy hits 500.
>> 
>> The second problem is here, and it comes from Rule 493:
>> 
>> "A DimShip is capable of carrying a Player through DimSpace by taking on
>> virtual dimensional values: Buoyancy (positive virtual value) and Ballast
>> (negative virtual value)."
>> 
>> Note the singular, and the use of the word "carrying".  Without using
>physics
>> that make my head hurt, I don't see any way that multiple DimShips can
>carry
>> you at the same time.  Therefore, even though you have five dimships
>with 100
>> entropy buoyancy each, it is my opinion that they don't give you more
>than 100
>> entropy buoyancy at any given time.
>
>The singular implies that that's what a dimship does. With multiple
>Dimships, each one fulfills its function. You're making the mistake of
>forcing your own ideas of what should be onto what is. You speak of using
>'physics that make my head hurt' as the only way Multiple DimShips could be
>employed, but there is no such thing as 'physics' in Nomic.
>
>If you must project some semblance of real-world physics upon them, think
>of
>them as little flying machines tied to me with strings. A dozen of them
>could then pick something up and pull it twelve times as far as any one of
>them could alone.
>
>Although even that's not accurate, as there's no connection between
>DimShips
>and any real-world analogy.

Let me rephrase.  R493 talks about a DimShip carrying a Player.  It doesn't talk about carrying a DimShip that's carrying a Player, so presumably DimShips can't be nested.

The rule talks about a Player displacing emself from eir current DimSpace location.  Which means if e employs a DimShip, e is displacing emself from where e actually is.  If e then employs a second DimShip, e is displacing emself from where e actually is.  This means displacement isn't cumulative in the sense that two DimShips displace one twice as far in a dimension as a single one does.  It may, however, mean two DimShips allow one to be displaced by as much as 100 in two dimensions rather than one.  But that doesn't give you an Entropy of 542.

The "little flying machines with strings" picture is awfully pretty, but it doesn't mesh with the rule, since the rule says that a Player does not travel to a specific location in DimSpace; therefore, it's not a question of a Player being taken so far, and then so much farther, because the Player doesn't go anywhere.  Even if the little machines could carry the Player a distance all at once, each of the machines is limited in how far it could take the Player from eir original location, so all of them together are simply limited together.

I still don't think it works, guy.

						Glotmorf

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 23:01:58 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Winning v2.0
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/27/02 at 10:45 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Dan Waldron,
>
>> You are assuming that displacement due to your Entropy 2 is applied to
>> your virtual position created by Entropy 1.  My reading of the rule was
>> that dimensional displacement is applied to real player dimensions, not
>> virtual player dimensions.
>
>But for the purposes of a second DimShip, the new, displaced dimensions
>caused by my first DimShip *are* my real dimensions.
>
>"If a player owns a DimShip and has launched it, then rules that check eir
>dimension values will check the values of eir virtual dimensions."
>
>If some other rule checks my dimension values, it will get my normal
>values,
>plus the some of all virtual values affecting me, such as my six or seven
>DimShips.

But a DimShip doesn't check a Player's dimensions; it displaces em from eir current DimSpace location.  And one's current DimSpace location doesn't change regardless of how many DimShips one applies.

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 00:35:24 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a great big kick in the ass, dum dum dum doo.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:33:08PM -0400, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> -Or not... How the hell was I supposed to know that was a hoax? (Don't 
> answer that, I have a way now.) Perpetuating is one thing, but being an 
> unknowing victim? Being CAUTIOUS? If you wish to attack people because they 
> don't know the names of every file on their hard drive, and don't know of 
> every hoax out there, then I think you're the one who needs the Kick in the 
> Ass.-

I'm sorry, but how is passing on an e-mail message instantly without
bothering to check its validity "being CAUTIOUS"? In the case of most
e-mail chain letters it's just dumb; in this case it was actually
harmful.

If you were to search for "jdbgmgr.exe", "bear virus", or any such
phrase on the Web, you would find a multitude of pages explaining the
hoax. In fact, if this virus were REAL, it would still be a good idea to
do a web search. What are the odds that an e-mail passed through
hundreds of people would still contain the correct instructions for
removing a virus?

-- 
Rob Speer

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Wonko's DimShips
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:22:36 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 We appear to be running under the assumption that Wonko's scam didn't
succeed, but I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments from either
side... 

 Does anyone plan to challenge the Admin's interpretation?

 WC.

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:54:52 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Wonko's DimShips
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>  We appear to be running under the assumption that Wonko's scam didn't
> succeed, but I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments from either
> side... 
>
The "A dimship" thing is bogus. Otherwise things like "players may make a proosal" (not a quote, just an example) wouldn't work. As Wonko points out, nomic and physics are unrelated.

Sadly, it think it still fails, because dimships only displace you from your actual location. I don't want that to be the case, but if it's not, then... well, you're on actual score 0. Your dimship sees that, and then displaces you to 100. So your dimship sees that, and displaces you to wash rinse repeat. So either Wonko's scam failed because it didn't work, everyone else with a dimship with score buoyancy is constantly winning. Neither interpretation is entirely desirable, but only one of them is broken.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:59:09 -0500
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a great
    big kick in the ass, dum dum dum doo.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I'm sorry, but how is passing on an e-mail message instantly without
> bothering to check its validity "being CAUTIOUS"? In the case of most
> e-mail chain letters it's just dumb; in this case it was actually
> harmful.
>
"Who is the more foolish - the fool, or the fool who follows him?"

Yes, the Baron made a (well-intentioned) mistake, and yes, he should have checked it out - but it was only harmful if you yourself made the same mistake, and failed to check it out.

Adding to the LOGAS will help nothing - had he known it was a hoax, he wouldn't have perpetuated it. Calling BvS dumb (albeit by implication) certainly doesn't help. All you're doing is making yourself look smug. And not in a good way.

Dave's response here was correct - inform people it's a hoax. Yay Dave, boo Rob and (less so) Naath.

uin.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:23:32 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a
  great big kick in the ass, dum dum dum doo.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/28/02 at 7:59 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>Dave's response here was correct - inform people it's a hoax. Yay Dave,
>boo Rob and (less so) Naath.

And snicker at me.  Because I should have checked it out too. :)

On the upside, it doesn't seem to be hurting anything in the short run (I haven't reinstalled the virtual machine yet), though I haven't tried running any applets either.  Is the debugger only invoked if an applet has a runtime error?

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:48:44 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 16 VOTING RESULTS
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/28/02 at 5:06 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Proposal 723/0 (And the Children Shall Lead) (Glotmorf):
>AFF: Glotmorf (15), Naath, Wild Card (12)
>NEG: Baron von Skippy, bd, Dan, Iain, Rob, Wonko
>Counts: (3-6-0-0). Measure fails.
>Poor Barney...
>Glotmorf loses 1 point.

...And the first dimship tale fails.  Ah well, quite a run it was.  Pity serialized forms didn't get approved...:)

Yes, there was a reason for this proposal.  Two or three reasons, actually, though one I could have laid groudwork for.

One was that it was part of the surprise I'd planned for Wonko (though he came up with a much bigger surprise, didn't he?).  Wonko argued that no one would go to that particular realm; perhaps he didn't realize that if his dimship was landed or out of commission, that realm is where he'd be.

Another reason was an idea I've been kicking around: outposts.  For those that have played Civilization, you know the process: discovery, exploration, colonization.  I figure we're up to the colonization step, but I haven't quite worked out rules for outposts that players can build in dimspace.  A hostile realm works as one, though, since it provides defensive fire; I could shoot at someone, then retreat to the Barney realm, as long as I was prepared to write a poetic form prop; anyone coming after me would have to be equally willing, or take fire from the realm.

Finally, in the spirit of the Entropy rule, I'd like to see certain things happen as we meander far enough down the dimensional axes.  And of course these things should turn downright strange as dimensions are combined.

So.  Guess I'll work on some groundwork rules, now that I don't need the element of surprise...and I wasn't sure what Chapter 8 would look like anyway...

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:14:36 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Tuesday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/28/02 at 5:44 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>Since actions must occur in the order they're posted, Glotmorf's first
>attempt to shoot at Wonko's DimShip fails (at the time, e didn't have
>either guns or armour, which e buys in eir second dimship message).

There was a scheduling factor in that action: "Immediately following my next launch".  Is it your call that we can't schedule actions into the future?  Would this have worked as a "pseudocode action"?

>Glotmorf buys Guns and Armor. (The rules don't say you have to land to
>have those installed, but Glotmorf does so anyway, presumably to make life
>a bit easier on the repair crew. E does restore previous heading
>immediately, though, so it doesn't matter much either way.)

R493 says dimships "must be landed when adding equipment or conducting repairs."  Is it your take that guns and armor don't count as "equipment"?

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a great big kick in the 
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:10:29 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So...you deleted your file too, then?

						Glotmorf

-*deflates* Yeah. Now to find somone who didn't...-

                                      -BvS-

I'm gonna go hide under my nuke-proof desk now.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a great big kick in the 
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:13:43 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a great big 
kick in the ass, dum dum dum doo.
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:44:43 -0400

Quoth Alex Truelsen,

 > [[ In order to ensure that this doesn't happen again... ]]
 >
 > I propose:
 > {{ __snopes.com is your friend.__
 > Add "perpetuating an e-mail hoax" to the LOGAS.
 > }}
 >
 > -Or not... How the hell was I supposed to know that was a hoax? (Don't
 > answer that, I have a way now.) Perpetuating is one thing, but being an
 > unknowing victim? Being CAUTIOUS? If you wish to attack people because 
they
 > don't know the names of every file on their hard drive, and don't know of
 > every hoax out there, then I think you're the one who needs the Kick in 
the
 > Ass.-
 >

You can't get kicked now, 'cuz it wasn't on the LOGAS when you did it. This
is for future hoax perpetuators.

And besides, the Admin can refuse to recognize Kicks if e thinks they're
unfounded. As long as you didn't mean to do it, e can save your ass, so to
speak.

--
Wonko

-No kidding. I know that, Wonko, thanks. it doesn't change that people in 
this game are all too ready and willing to attack anyone who does something 
like this without knowing that it's a hoax. Okay, all, I promise, from now 
on I won't alert any of you if I have reason to believe a virus has run 
through your systems from mine, okay?-

                                               -BvS-

I'm gonna go hide under my nuke-proof desk now.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a great big kick in the 
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:18:46 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>-Or not... How the hell was I supposed to know that was a hoax? (Don't
 > answer that, I have a way now.) Perpetuating is one thing, but being an
 > unknowing victim? Being CAUTIOUS? If you wish to attack people because 
they
 > don't know the names of every file on their hard drive, and don't know of
 > every hoax out there, then I think you're the one who needs the Kick in 
the
 > Ass.-

I'm sorry, but how is passing on an e-mail message instantly without
bothering to check its validity "being CAUTIOUS"? In the case of most
e-mail chain letters it's just dumb; in this case it was actually
harmful.
-Rob, how was I supposed to check its validity? I recieved a message from a 
friend, not a chain, mind you, he had written it up himself, and had pasted 
in the instructions. It wasn't a chain, it was a sincere warning, and only 
later did he discover that it was a hoax. Don't assume that just because you 
know something, everyone else does, and anyone who doesn't is stupid, okay?-

If you were to search for "jdbgmgr.exe", "bear virus", or any such
phrase on the Web, you would find a multitude of pages explaining the
hoax. In fact, if this virus were REAL, it would still be a good idea to
do a web search. What are the odds that an e-mail passed through
hundreds of people would still contain the correct instructions for
removing a virus?
-Hindsight is 20/20. Get off my back, okay? I've never been the target of a 
virus, and I was trying to avoid this being the first time.-

--
Rob Speer

                                         -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:42:10 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Tuesday
 morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> There was a scheduling factor in that action: "Immediately following my
> next launch".  Is it your call that we can't schedule actions into the
> future?  Would this have worked as a "pseudocode action"?

Your actions, in the order they were received (which, due to the vagaries
of email, wasn't in the order they were apparently sent):

1. "Immediately following next launch, set heading, then shoot at Wonko"
2. "At start of next nweek, shoot at Wonko some more."
3. "Land, load up gear, then launch."

I did mis-read the rules, but the net result is the same.

You landed (though not strictly necessary - see below), had stuff
installed, and re-launched. Launches can only occur at the end of an
nweek, so your shot (action 1) is for nweek 17. Action 2 will occur at the
start of nweek 18.

> R493 says dimships "must be landed when adding equipment or conducting
> repairs."  Is it your take that guns and armor don't count as
> "equipment"?

Well, the "DimShip Guns and Armor" rule doesn't have the word equipment in
it anywhere, so far as I recall.

...dave

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:46:06 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
  (Tuesday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/28/02 at 3:42 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>> R493 says dimships "must be landed when adding equipment or conducting
>> repairs."  Is it your take that guns and armor don't count as
>> "equipment"?
>
>Well, the "DimShip Guns and Armor" rule doesn't have the word equipment in
>it anywhere, so far as I recall.

No, it doesn't, but the dictionary meaning of "equipment" is rather indicative.  If we're not going to go with dictionary meanings in lieu of explicit definitions, perhaps uin should CFI the legality of any game action having to do with an "object"...:)

						Glotmorf

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:56:20 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer  (Tuesday
 morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> >Well, the "DimShip Guns and Armor" rule doesn't have the word equipment in
> >it anywhere, so far as I recall.
>
> No, it doesn't, but the dictionary meaning of "equipment" is rather
> indicative.

Funny, I don't remember seeing a rule that said "The Oxford English
Dictionary is herein incorporated into the ruleset by reference." or
anything even vaguely like it.

I agree that they should be considered equipment, but, well, it's not so.

>  perhaps uin should CFI the legality of any game action having to do
> with an "object"...:)

Don't give em ideas. ;)

...dave

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: vSOI: Now Hiring 
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:33:46 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Anyone else who wishes to join need only ask, and it will be taken into 
> consideration... Bribes are also welcomed.

 C'n I join?

 WC.

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:20:51 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Where am I now?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It is currently illegal to remain in the square where I am on the Grid.
Hence, I should be randomly relocated. Where am I now?
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:53:54 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 16 VOTING RESULTS
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> Proposal 717/0 (Jumping through HOOPs) (Wonko):
> AFF: bd
> NEG: Baron von Skippy, Dan, Glotmorf, Iain, Naath, Rob, Wild Card, Wonko
> Counts: (1-8-0-0). Measure fails.
> Wonko loses 2 points.

It's a Charter Prop. I don't lose points.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:07:48 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Tuesday morning)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> The following corrections are made to the voting results posted
> previously:
> 
> Wonko didn't vote. E was cursed. Fortunately, the only issue affected by
> eir votes is 694 (the appeal, under the old rules, of CFI 688), which was
> probably illegal (due to how I phrased it) and is hereby vetoed in any
> event (I think we've beaten this one into the ground, folks).

Yes, I was cursed, but by r20:

"Each Player is eligible to vote on each issue on any given Ballot for the
duration of the voting for which the Ballot was issued. "

The Witch rule says I can't vote, but never declares precedence on

> Wonko buys Entropy Ships One through Five inclusive. They will launch at
> the end of the nweek. Under Rule 493, only one of those ships can affect
> Wonko's virtual dimensions (*A* DimShip is capable of carrying a Player
> through DimSpace -- emphasis added), so the other five will be sorta
> floating in DimSpace unattended. (Fortunately, there's no legal mechanism
> for piracy, so your ships are safe.)

That's just defining what a DimShip does. It never says 'Additional DimShips
do nothing'. By your logic, nothing but the very first DimShip ever
purchased could do anything at all.

Either all of them can affect my dimensions, or we only have one player (*A*
player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing test -- emphasis
added)

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:16:49 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Winning v2.0
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/27/02 at 10:07 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>>> I see a couple problems with your master plan.  The first one is here: by
>>> dropping your Entropy buoyancy, you instantly raised your Entropy to 41.
>> That
>>> makes the rest of this message illegal, since all of the sentences that
>> follow
>>> this one contain words longer than one syllable. (There was a reason why
>> I
>>> broke my dimship actions into three messages.)
>> 
>> No, I can't send msgs when my Entropy is high. At the time I sent the msg,
>> my Entropy was low, so it was legal. The actions didn't take effect until
>> they reached the forum, by which time the msg had already been posted.
> 
> Well, if we want to split hairs, the characters that contained the first
> action hit the forum before the rest of the characters did; therefore, the
> action took effect before the rest of the message reached the forum.
> 
> If we REALLY want to split hairs, r440 doesn't talk about whether you can send
> messages; it says "all eir messages posted to the public forum".  God help us
> if that could be thought to include messages that had already been
> posted...but if it did, that would include the message that causes your
> Entropy to be too high.
> 
>>>> [[
>>>> Here's what I believe will happen:
>>>> 
>>>> At the end of the nweek, thanks to my Ships, Global Entropy hits 500.
>>> 
>>> The second problem is here, and it comes from Rule 493:
>>> 
>>> "A DimShip is capable of carrying a Player through DimSpace by taking on
>>> virtual dimensional values: Buoyancy (positive virtual value) and Ballast
>>> (negative virtual value)."
>>> 
>>> Note the singular, and the use of the word "carrying".  Without using
>> physics
>>> that make my head hurt, I don't see any way that multiple DimShips can
>> carry
>>> you at the same time.  Therefore, even though you have five dimships
>> with 100
>>> entropy buoyancy each, it is my opinion that they don't give you more
>> than 100
>>> entropy buoyancy at any given time.
>> 
>> The singular implies that that's what a dimship does. With multiple
>> Dimships, each one fulfills its function. You're making the mistake of
>> forcing your own ideas of what should be onto what is. You speak of using
>> 'physics that make my head hurt' as the only way Multiple DimShips could be
>> employed, but there is no such thing as 'physics' in Nomic.
>> 
>> If you must project some semblance of real-world physics upon them, think
>> of
>> them as little flying machines tied to me with strings. A dozen of them
>> could then pick something up and pull it twelve times as far as any one of
>> them could alone.
>> 
>> Although even that's not accurate, as there's no connection between
>> DimShips
>> and any real-world analogy.
> 
> Let me rephrase.  R493 talks about a DimShip carrying a Player.  It doesn't
> talk about carrying a DimShip that's carrying a Player, so presumably DimShips
> can't be nested.
> 
> The rule talks about a Player displacing emself from eir current DimSpace
> location.  Which means if e employs a DimShip, e is displacing emself from
> where e actually is.  If e then employs a second DimShip, e is displacing
> emself from where e actually is.  This means displacement isn't cumulative in
> the sense that two DimShips displace one twice as far in a dimension as a
> single one does.  It may, however, mean two DimShips allow one to be displaced
> by as much as 100 in two dimensions rather than one.  But that doesn't give
> you an Entropy of 542.
> 
> The "little flying machines with strings" picture is awfully pretty, but it
> doesn't mesh with the rule, since the rule says that a Player does not travel
> to a specific location in DimSpace; therefore, it's not a question of a Player
> being taken so far, and then so much farther, because the Player doesn't go
> anywhere.  Even if the little machines could carry the Player a distance all
> at once, each of the machines is limited in how far it could take the Player
> from eir original location, so all of them together are simply limited
> together.

By the rules:

"If a player owns a DimShip and has launched it, then rules that check eir
dimension values will check the values of eir virtual dimensions."

I have 500 virtual points of Entropy. Thus, my virtual entropy is 500.
Therefore, any rule checking my Entropy will check my virtual entropy, and
be given 500.

Perhaps I'm also being displaced from my location, but that's beside the
point. The point is that anything looking at me sees my virtual Entropy -
500.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:17:55 -0400
Subject: FW: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
	(Tuesday morning)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Oops, something got cut off there...

> The following corrections are made to the voting results posted
> previously:
> 
> Wonko didn't vote. E was cursed. Fortunately, the only issue affected by
> eir votes is 694 (the appeal, under the old rules, of CFI 688), which was
> probably illegal (due to how I phrased it) and is hereby vetoed in any
> event (I think we've beaten this one into the ground, folks).

Yes, I was cursed, but by r20:

"Each Player is eligible to vote on each issue on any given Ballot for the
duration of the voting for which the Ballot was issued. "

The Witch rule says I can't vote, but never declares precedence over rule
20. R20 therefore supercedes it, and I am eligible to vote.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:21:16 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Winning v2.0
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/27/02 at 10:45 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Dan Waldron,
>> 
>>> You are assuming that displacement due to your Entropy 2 is applied to
>>> your virtual position created by Entropy 1.  My reading of the rule was
>>> that dimensional displacement is applied to real player dimensions, not
>>> virtual player dimensions.
>> 
>> But for the purposes of a second DimShip, the new, displaced dimensions
>> caused by my first DimShip *are* my real dimensions.
>> 
>> "If a player owns a DimShip and has launched it, then rules that check eir
>> dimension values will check the values of eir virtual dimensions."
>> 
>> If some other rule checks my dimension values, it will get my normal
>> values,
>> plus the some of all virtual values affecting me, such as my six or seven
>> DimShips.
> 
> But a DimShip doesn't check a Player's dimensions; it displaces em from eir
> current DimSpace location.  And one's current DimSpace location doesn't change
> regardless of how many DimShips one applies.

Yes it does...

I repeat:

"If a player owns a DimShip and has launched it, then rules that check eir
dimension values will check the values of eir virtual dimensions."

So how does the DimShip know my current DimSpace location? It must check.
And get the combined effects of my actual values and my other DimShips.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:47:14 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Tuesday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:07:48PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
> Either all of them can affect my dimensions, or we only have one player (*A*
> player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing test -- emphasis
> added)

I'm not bothering to look at these rules in detail at the moment, but
there had better be something in the rules that stops the DimShip rule
from applying to itself. Otherwise the "current location" it displaces
from is the virtual location, because for all the rule knows the virtual
location _is_ the current location - which would bring everything
crashing down the first time someone set +1 Buoyancy of Entropy. You
don't need five ships for that.

And if it doesn't apply to itself (a more favorable situation), then the
five DimShips couldn't possibly work cumulatively.

Wonko, if you can demonstrate that the situation is somewhere in between
- different DimShips apply to each other but not to themselves - then I
will agree that you've won. I think, unfortunately, that the first
situation is the most likely, and we'll have to reconsider everything
from the past two weeks.

The ethics of winning a Nomic are interesting. For one thing, there are
always ways to stop a Win. Assuming that a Win is the most valuable
thing in the game, it should make sense for the other players to CFI the
Win and judge it to be false ("rationale: because I don't want him to
win"). But that would ruin something more valuable than a Win - the
integrity of the game.

If Wonko has in fact exploited a loophole to make him win the game, I
won't resort to cheap tricks to stop him. It wouldn't be especially fair
- nobody (okay, one person, but he gave up) did that to me when I won A
Nomic.

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:04:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Tuesday
 morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> That's just defining what a DimShip does. It never says 'Additional DimShips
> do nothing'. By your logic, nothing but the very first DimShip ever
> purchased could do anything at all.
> 
> Either all of them can affect my dimensions, or we only have one player (*A*
> player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing test -- emphasis
> added)

Yes they all affect your dimensions.  Each of them sets you to a virtual
Entropy 100 greater than your real Entropy.  The rules don't prohibit you
from having multiple displacements either, but that doens't make them
cumulative.

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: NWEEK 16 VOTING RESULTS
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:24:56 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 28 May 2002 1:06 am, you wrote:
> Proposal 724/0 (The Casino) (bd):
> AFF: bd, Dan, Glotmorf, Iain
> NEG: Baron von Skippy, Naath
> ABS: Wild Card, Wonko
> SHL: Rob
> Counts: (4-2-2-1). Measure passes.
> Created The Casino.
> Created 752/0.
> bd scores 15 points.
>
> Proposal 725/0 (LOGAS cleanup) (bd):
> AFF: bd, Glotmorf, Iain, Wild Card, Wonko
> NEG: Baron von Skippy, Dan, Naath
> ABS: Rob
> Counts: (5-3-1-0). Measure passes.
> Revised the LOGAS.
> bd scores 11 points.
>
> Proposal 729/1 (Exorcism of much evil) (bd):
> AFF: bd, Dan, Iain, Naath, Rob, Wild Card
> NEG: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Wonko
> Counts: (6-3-0-0). Measure passes.
> As the Holy Order of Points doesn't exist, this has no effect (aside from
> making it wholly unambiguous as to whether it still exists).
> bd scores 8 points.

Wow! My first three proposals all passed!

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: vSOI: Now Hiring
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:29:12 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 28 May 2002 12:32 pm, you wrote:
> Well, thank you to all who voted for vSOI (I pronounce it vee-soy, just to
> clarify, so people over entropy thresholds know what they're dealing
> with.), and now, it's time to put a few people into it, eh? Okay, then...
>
> I make Glotmorf a member of vSOI.
> I make The Voice a member of vSOI.
> I make Wonko a member of vSOI.
>
> I laugh evilly.
>
> Anyone else who wishes to join need only ask, and it will be taken into
> consideration... Bribes are also welcomed.
>
> I pay 8 points to the Gnome Account for a Water Gnome and an Earth Gnome,
> which I then squeeze in that order over the square I am currently standing
> on.

I'd like to join, I'll offer 5 points. :)

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Website
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:30:53 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Monday 27 May 2002 8:10 pm, you wrote:
> I said:
> > Thus spake Wonko:
> > > Ummm... As of earlier today, the website could not be accessed and the
> > > mailing list did nothing... The mailing list is back, and the website
> > > can now be accessed, but all it says is
> > >
> > > Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
> > > '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/g6/www/inc/dbcon.php on line
> > > 2 Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket
> > > '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111)
> > >
> > > I get the distinct impression that all is not well... Am I correct?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Wonko
> >
> > That's because I'm in the midst of upgrading to RH 7.3---things should
> > mostly be working again now.
>
> All the things I know were broken during the upgrade are now fixed. As for
> the things that I'm not aware are broken, well, hopefully they're fixed
> now, too.
>
> If you liked the problems today, just wait until I switch the mailing list
> over to Mailman. Oh, boy! :)

Come on, use Gentoo (gentoo.org)! I use it. The downside is it takes an 
eternity and an hour to install. And it's not for newbies. And if you don't 
read the docs, you'll be in for some major hurtage.

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Wonko's DimShips
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:35:40 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 28 May 2002 8:22 am, you wrote:
>  We appear to be running under the assumption that Wonko's scam didn't
> succeed, but I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments from either
> side...
>
>  Does anyone plan to challenge the Admin's interpretation?
>
>  WC.

Remember, the Admin can always invoke Rule 0, and kill Wonko's dimships...

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a great big kick in the
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:37:02 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 28 May 2002 11:10 am, you wrote:
> So...you deleted your file too, then?
>
> 						Glotmorf
>
> -*deflates* Yeah. Now to find somone who didn't...-

I didn't. Of course, I run Linux, so I didn't have it in the first place...

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:47:22 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
	(Tuesday morning)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:07:48PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
>> Either all of them can affect my dimensions, or we only have one player (*A*
>> player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing test -- emphasis
>> added)
> 
> I'm not bothering to look at these rules in detail at the moment, but
> there had better be something in the rules that stops the DimShip rule
> from applying to itself. Otherwise the "current location" it displaces
> from is the virtual location, because for all the rule knows the virtual
> location _is_ the current location - which would bring everything
> crashing down the first time someone set +1 Buoyancy of Entropy. You
> don't need five ships for that.

There's nothing to stop it from applying to itself.

> And if it doesn't apply to itself (a more favorable situation), then the
> five DimShips couldn't possibly work cumulatively.

Unfortunately, I think it does...

> Wonko, if you can demonstrate that the situation is somewhere in between
> - different DimShips apply to each other but not to themselves - then I
> will agree that you've won. I think, unfortunately, that the first
> situation is the most likely, and we'll have to reconsider everything
> from the past two weeks.

I'd have to agree...

> The ethics of winning a Nomic are interesting. For one thing, there are
> always ways to stop a Win. Assuming that a Win is the most valuable
> thing in the game, it should make sense for the other players to CFI the
> Win and judge it to be false ("rationale: because I don't want him to
> win"). But that would ruin something more valuable than a Win - the
> integrity of the game.
> 
> If Wonko has in fact exploited a loophole to make him win the game, I
> won't resort to cheap tricks to stop him. It wouldn't be especially fair
> - nobody (okay, one person, but he gave up) did that to me when I won A
> Nomic.

Wins are awarded anyway - you could just propose to take away my Win. I
think that actually happened once, way back in nweek 1, 'cause something
really screwy happened with the ruleset.

But I don't actually see why a Win is the most valuable thing in the game -
basically I get a pat on the back and we start from zero again... If in fact
I do have a Win, then from now on I'll probably be playing just for the sake
of playing the game.

-- 
Wonko
'I (may have) won B Nomic and all I got was this stupid t-shirt'

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Tuesday morning)
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:52:57 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 28 May 2002 7:47 pm, you wrote:
> Quoth Rob Speer,
>
> > On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:07:48PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
> >> Either all of them can affect my dimensions, or we only have one player
> >> (*A* player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing test --
> >> emphasis added)
> >
> > I'm not bothering to look at these rules in detail at the moment, but
> > there had better be something in the rules that stops the DimShip rule
> > from applying to itself. Otherwise the "current location" it displaces
> > from is the virtual location, because for all the rule knows the virtual
> > location _is_ the current location - which would bring everything
> > crashing down the first time someone set +1 Buoyancy of Entropy. You
> > don't need five ships for that.
>
> There's nothing to stop it from applying to itself.
>
> > And if it doesn't apply to itself (a more favorable situation), then the
> > five DimShips couldn't possibly work cumulatively.
>
> Unfortunately, I think it does...

Wow. I'll get to see rule 0 in action! Yipee!

I mean, Oh No!

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:05:36 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Tuesday morning)
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 07:47:22PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
> But I don't actually see why a Win is the most valuable thing in the game -
> basically I get a pat on the back and we start from zero again... If in fact
> I do have a Win, then from now on I'll probably be playing just for the sake
> of playing the game.

Winning is the most valuable thing because it has to be. Behind all
sorts of rules is the assumption that players are trying to win.
It seems to be part of game custom that even if you don't plan to win,
you should act like you do (for example, by trying to accumulate
points).

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:11:26 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer
	(Tuesday morning)
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Tuesday 28 May 2002 7:47 pm, you wrote:
>> Quoth Rob Speer,
>> 
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:07:48PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
>>>> Either all of them can affect my dimensions, or we only have one player
>>>> (*A* player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing test --
>>>> emphasis added)
>>> 
>>> I'm not bothering to look at these rules in detail at the moment, but
>>> there had better be something in the rules that stops the DimShip rule
>>> from applying to itself. Otherwise the "current location" it displaces
>>> from is the virtual location, because for all the rule knows the virtual
>>> location _is_ the current location - which would bring everything
>>> crashing down the first time someone set +1 Buoyancy of Entropy. You
>>> don't need five ships for that.
>> 
>> There's nothing to stop it from applying to itself.
>> 
>>> And if it doesn't apply to itself (a more favorable situation), then the
>>> five DimShips couldn't possibly work cumulatively.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, I think it does...
> 
> Wow. I'll get to see rule 0 in action! Yipee!
> 
> I mean, Oh No!

Is there actually an Emergency? I think all us DimShip people just get a lot
of Wins really fast... but in Nomic, an infinite number of actions can take
place in a finite period of time. As of now, a bunch of people have a lot of
wins, the grid is permanently in flames, nobody can play football, as nobody
can go onto the Grid, no insta-rules can be made, as they'd get wiped, and
nobody knows where the Endzones are. There are also no Gnomes, and all
Gremlins are Hiding. All player's scores are flying left and right with
little or no provocation. The Weather is changing so fast we've got no clue
what's going on, but that's okay, as the Weather only affects the Grid, and
the Grid is inaccessible.

In short, All Hell has Broken Loose.

Fortunately, we're all safe and tidy up here in Limbo, so we can just keep
going as usual, just without any real 'dimensions'. ;)

Say, where's my BAC? It was plummeting down infinitely earlier, but now it's
whizzing back up...

-- 
Wonko

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Website 
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:11:39 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thus spake bd:
> 
> Come on, use Gentoo (gentoo.org)! I use it. The downside is it takes an 
> eternity and an hour to install. And it's not for newbies. And if you don't
> read the docs, you'll be in for some major hurtage.

I think the probability of my installing a completely different distro only 
two days after upgrading my current one is vanishingly close to zero. :)

-- 
J.

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:42:19 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> Create a proposal consisting of the following text:
> {{
> __Land first!__
> 
> Add the following text to the end of rule 635:
> 
> [[
> Guns and Armor may be added to a DimShip only if the DimShip is landed.
> ]]
> 
> }}

You could add that, but it wouldn't do anything. [[]] means comment - if a
rule says [[ Guns and Armor may be added to a DimShip only if the DimShip is
landed. ]] it will have no force. Maybe try it without the brackets...

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:44:13 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Interesting
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So, given this new interpretation of the recursive effects of DimShips,
we have to look at what the offsets were 1 nweek ago (anything before
that falls under the Statute of Limitations).

I don't know where BvS was, because he's changed it since then.
BvS was at +50 Score, +50 Style, -50 Entropy, -50 Charm.
Glotmorf was at +10 Respect, -60 Entropy.
I was at +95 Score, +5 Style.
The Voice was at +95 Score, +5 Style, -65 Entropy.
Wild Card was at -5 Activity, -75 Charm, +20 Score, +60 Entropy.
Wonko was at -50 Entropy, -50 BAC.

...Oh. I just realized something.

When we set our DimShips' ballast and buoyancy, it has to check our
location before the move, but not after. So none of the displacements repeated
an infinite number of times - only once for _every action that checks
that dimension_.

Which means the people who set their offsets later in the nweek have an
effect, too.

I believe that someone has won. I don't for the life of me know who. But
I'm going to dig through some Daily Recognizers and find out.

Time to start counting...
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:03:18 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Interesting
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 08:44:13PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
> Time to start counting...

Gah. I need to know what people's Score and Entropy were on the 18th.
Dave, do you have that stored somewhere?

Oh, and ignore my self-contradictory statement about BvS's offset. I
went back and found it, so I did in fact know what it was. :)
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:34:34 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Rough guessing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Heyyyy. I just realized that I don't need to know what the scores were -
just how many _additional_ points people got from their recursive
DimShips.

The Entropy counts probably wouldn't affect much, as people generally
had Ballast in Entropy, so Global Entropy would be going down
repeatedly. (So much for thermodynamics.)

These were the Score buoyancies at the beginning of the week:

BvS: ? (Now I'm really confused. But it doesn't matter.)
Rob: +95
Voice: +95
Wild Card: 0 (It wasn't launched yet. My bad.)

So now I look through Daily Recognizers for all the times when anything
would check someone's Score.

On the 21st, some points were taken away from supposed HOOP members, but
those points never existed in the first place, so they don't count.

On the 23rd, there were some more nonexistent points for the HOOP. They
were then CFJed out of existence again, so again the dimships couldn't
have taken effect. I paid for the Witch Gremlin; hence, my Score was
checked, and I gained 95 points, making 294 with my present score.

On the 24th, BvS set his Score buoyancy quite definitively to +50. No
need to worry about that uncertainty. Since his score is checked in
displacing him, he gained 50 points, making 494.

On the 25th, Wild Card set his Score buoyancy to +20, making 106 with his
score. 

And then, the votes.

BvS made one proposal. For proposals, it doesn't matter whether they
passed or failed; they check your score to add or subtract from it. BvS
gets +50 for 544.
I made two proposals. +190 -> 484.
The Voice made 4 proposals besides the Respect one. +380 -> 665.
Wild Card made 4 proposals. +80 -> 186.

Wonko sets his Dimship to +100 Score, which is then counted once for each
subsequent Entropy Ship he buys. +600 -> 692. Wonko also becomes the
soberest person in the world at minus several hundred BAC.

Wonko gets points stolen from him by Robin; unfortunately this displaces
his DimShip again. +100 -> 792.

Miraculously, nobody went over 1000. Which means I know what I'll do
next.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Kick in the ass, a great big kick in the
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:45:26 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I didn't. Of course, I run Linux, so I didn't have it in the first place...

-*sigh* That's helpful...-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:00:43 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Win?
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> [[ If my interpretation is right - that DimShips are displaced only when
> Score is checked by some event - then I win with these actions. ]]
> 
> [[ I start with 494 points and gain 95 for each displacement. ]]
> I give 5 points to the Gremlin Fund. [[ Score: 584 ]]
> I give 5 points to the Gremlin Fund. [[ Score: 674 ]]
> I give 5 points to the Gremlin Fund. [[ Score: 764 ]]
> I give 5 points to the Gremlin Fund. [[ Score: 854 ]]
> I give 5 points to the Gremlin Fund. [[ Score: 944 ]]
> I give 5 points to the Gremlin Fund. [[ Score: 1034 ]]
> 
> [[ In case I added my displacements wrong in the other e-mail, I do it
> twice more for good measure: ]]
> I give 5 points to the Gremlin Fund.
> I give 5 points to the Gremlin Fund.
> 
> I do a victory dance and thank Wonko for the inspiration.

I think you're overlooking something. I've got well over 500 points of
entropy by your interpretation (which I agree with). Every time entropy is
cleared by the entropy rule, I'm reevaluated, and shoot back up to 500. So
the 'end of the world' stuff happens repeatedly, and part of that is 'give
each player 10 points. As I've got about 200 points btwn the D.S.S. Hysteria
and the Score ship, being reevaluated every time my score is checked, I
shoot past 1000 first, and the Clock goes off.

Unless I've overlooked something too...

-- 
Wonko

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Interesting
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:07:09 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I don't know where BvS was, because he's changed it since then.
BvS was at +50 Score, +50 Style, -50 Entropy, -50 Charm.

-I believe that's the only place I've ever been, save 0 everything.-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Rough guessing
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:10:02 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On the 24th, BvS set his Score buoyancy quite definitively to +50. No
need to worry about that uncertainty. Since his score is checked in
displacing him, he gained 50 points, making 494.
-Whoa, thanks a lot for the bonus, but where did you get those nubers from? 
I've currently (well, not counting this DimShip stuff) got 92 points...-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:15:40 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Win?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 10:00:43PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
> I think you're overlooking something. I've got well over 500 points of
> entropy by your interpretation (which I agree with). Every time entropy is
> cleared by the entropy rule, I'm reevaluated, and shoot back up to 500. So
> the 'end of the world' stuff happens repeatedly, and part of that is 'give
> each player 10 points. As I've got about 200 points btwn the D.S.S. Hysteria
> and the Score ship, being reevaluated every time my score is checked, I
> shoot past 1000 first, and the Clock goes off.
> 
> Unless I've overlooked something too...

Well, then, we've got to count up the Entropy. Realize that lots of
people had Entropy ballast, and Entropy is checked every time someone
posts a message on the Forum. So I assume that over the course of the
nweek it went way negative.

And also, what does it mean for Entropy to be "set to 0"? It hasn't very
well been set to 0 if it's 500 afterward, right? Since the virtual
Entropy is the real thing from the point of view of the rules, shouldn't
it set your base Entropy to -500 so that your overall Entropy is set to
0?

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:17:42 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Rough guessing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 10:10:02PM -0400, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> On the 24th, BvS set his Score buoyancy quite definitively to +50. No
> need to worry about that uncertainty. Since his score is checked in
> displacing him, he gained 50 points, making 494.
> -Whoa, thanks a lot for the bonus, but where did you get those nubers from? 
> I've currently (well, not counting this DimShip stuff) got 92 points...-

Derr. You're right. I wonder what I was adding. So you had 142 then.
Subtract 352 from whatever I said about your score.

Not that it matters all that much. If this interpretation is at all
valid, then either Wonko or I have won, and we just need to figure out
which.
-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:24:39 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Rough guessing
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> Heyyyy. I just realized that I don't need to know what the scores were -
> just how many _additional_ points people got from their recursive
> DimShips.
> 
> The Entropy counts probably wouldn't affect much, as people generally
> had Ballast in Entropy, so Global Entropy would be going down
> repeatedly. (So much for thermodynamics.)
> 
> These were the Score buoyancies at the beginning of the week:
> 
> BvS: ? (Now I'm really confused. But it doesn't matter.)
> Rob: +95
> Voice: +95
> Wild Card: 0 (It wasn't launched yet. My bad.)
> 
> So now I look through Daily Recognizers for all the times when anything
> would check someone's Score.
> 
> On the 21st, some points were taken away from supposed HOOP members, but
> those points never existed in the first place, so they don't count.
> 
> On the 23rd, there were some more nonexistent points for the HOOP. They
> were then CFJed out of existence again, so again the dimships couldn't
> have taken effect. I paid for the Witch Gremlin; hence, my Score was
> checked, and I gained 95 points, making 294 with my present score.
> 
> On the 24th, BvS set his Score buoyancy quite definitively to +50. No
> need to worry about that uncertainty. Since his score is checked in
> displacing him, he gained 50 points, making 494.
> 
> On the 25th, Wild Card set his Score buoyancy to +20, making 106 with his
> score. 
> 
> And then, the votes.
> 
> BvS made one proposal. For proposals, it doesn't matter whether they
> passed or failed; they check your score to add or subtract from it. BvS
> gets +50 for 544.
> I made two proposals. +190 -> 484.
> The Voice made 4 proposals besides the Respect one. +380 -> 665.
> Wild Card made 4 proposals. +80 -> 186.
> 
> Wonko sets his Dimship to +100 Score, which is then counted once for each
> subsequent Entropy Ship he buys. +600 -> 692. Wonko also becomes the
> soberest person in the world at minus several hundred BAC.
> 
> Wonko gets points stolen from him by Robin; unfortunately this displaces
> his DimShip again. +100 -> 792.
> 
> Miraculously, nobody went over 1000. Which means I know what I'll do
> next.

Aha, something else you overlooked.
A) I bought a seventh DimShip set to +99 Score. (Spoon-business,5/27/02,
5:15 PM)
B) I wasn't getting returns from Business at the time I bought my DimShips.
So I reposted. (Spoon-business,5/27/02, 6:32 PM) Which means I reset my
Dimship to +100 Score, and bought 5 new Entropy Ships and a new Score Ship,
entirely by accident, easily pushing me over the 1000 mark.

-- 
Wonko
suspects e may soon be recognizing an emergency...

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:49:04 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFIs: Nobody's won just yet
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Alex Truelsen,

> [[Okay, here are two CFIs, a nice little last-ditch thing. Perhaps not as
> well thought-out or stated as they could be, but...]]
> 
> CFI1:
> Statement: Universal Entropy has not been pushed over 500 by Wonko's
> purchase of 5 DimShips and eir subsequent setting of said ships's Buoyancy
> to 100 entropy each.
> 
> Analysis: Rule 493 states the following: "A DimShip is capable of carrying a
> Player through DimSpace by taking on virtual dimensional values: Buoyancy
> (positive virtual value) and Ballast (negative virtual value)." Note the use
> of the word "a." Wonko can't be displaced by all 5 DimShips, and even if e
> could, e still wouldn't be at 500 entropy, because nowhere does it say that
> effects are cumulative.

Didn't we just establish that, according to what the rules actually say, all
5 can work at once and they must be cumulative not only with each other but
with themselves as well?

>
> 
> Defendant: Wonko
> 
> CFI2:
> Statement: No player has been awarded a Win based upon eir virtual
> dimensions as set by eir DimShips.
> 
> Analysis: Rule 493: "Ballast and Buoyancy are each limited to 100. Each can
> be set to as much as 100, even at the same time, for displacement in single
> or multiple dimensions. That is, no matter how many dimensions Ballast is
> gathered for, total Ballast must be less than or equal to 100; same with
> Buoyancy." Regardless of updates to eir dimensions, players are not awarded
> higher or lower points, entropy, or any dimension past the values set by eir
> virtual dimensions, that is, changing the value of one's score Buoyancy does
> not change one's actual score, because only "Rules that change the values of
> dimensions, though, will change eir real dimensions." (Rule 493 again)
> Therefore, no one's dimensions are changed by eir DimShips any further from
> eir actual dimensions than the Buoyancy and Ballast of eir Dimships.

And when Rules change the values of dimensions, how do they know what the
'real' values are? They check. And checking always returns the virtual
dimensions. What the rule meant to do, I suspect, was say 'when a rule
*other than this one* queries a players dimensions, it gets eir virtual
dimensions.' But it didn't, so it bamboozles itself.

> Defendant: Rob

-- 
Wonko

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:51:07 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: DimShip paradox
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

See...there's a problem with the DimShip rule as it's being interpreted currently.  Wonko's claim is that if a Player has two DimShips, the first one uses the Player's real dimensions to produce eir virtual dimensions, and the second one uses the Player's virtual dimensions to produce eir new virtual dimensions.  But that means the DimShip rule can be applied to itself.

The problem is, that makes it impossible to determine one's virtual dimensions.  Not runaway acceleration...flat-out impossible.  The first time a buoyant or ballasted dimension is checked, the rule says to use the virtual dimension.  Okay, what's the virtual dimension?  It's the real dimension, plus the buoyancy, minus the ballast.  So what's the real dimension?  The rule says to use the virtual dimension...

This results in instant paradox, because it's impossible to determine precisely what the real dimension is.  Which means the first time anyone with a DimShip took some action or wound up in a situation that required eir dimension to be checked, the game would have become an emergency because the dimension couldn't be checked.  I don't remember if Rule 0 existed before or after DimShips, but some action would have to have been taken then.

I don't seem to recall that happening.

Okay, so if it's too late to go all the way back to when the first DimShip was launched, let's consider the farthest-back time a dimension was checked, and can still be CFI'd.  That'd probably be the first message in the nweek before last posted to spoon-business by someone with Entropy ballast, since its legality would have been dependent on eir Entropy.  That should have triggered an emergency, and I know Rule 0 was around then.

That didn't happen either.

Which forces me to invoke the concepts of "game custom" and "precedent".  Oddly, neither of those terms is defined in the rules, much like some other words that have come under scrutiny recently (we're not done with that argument, Dave :), but as I understand it they're both recognized, accepted and employed concepts in the average Nomic game.

Basically, we've been doing this all along, and treating the rule as if it had particular meaning, and the game didn't break.  Which either means the game should be broken now, or the very fact that it's not broken sets a precedent.

I don't see any halfway measures in this that allow Wonko the Win e'd claimed.  And if I had to decide (which I may well if a CFI happens), I'd decide the game wasn't broken, and therefore the rule is interpreted in the manner that doesn't break the game.

						Glotmorf

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: rule 0 problem
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:14:28 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I forsee a huge problem in the near future.  If this whole DimShip fiasco 
ends in a Rule 0 type emergency, the game as we know it will cease to 
exist...

It says,  'The Emergency Management procedure (hereafter in this rule known 
as "The Procedure") will be followed in the event of an Emergency, as 
recognized by the majority of the most recently formally recognized body of 
players in The Game.'

Step 8 reads as follows: 'First-round votes are counted. When the value of 
the Pause is 7, the Administrator will count all the submitted votes and 
announce to the Forum which Refresh Proposal received the largest number of 
votes. If only one Refresh Proposal received the largest number of votes, it 
is implemented by the Administrator and the Procedure ends; otherwise the 
Procedure continues to Step 9.'

Step 12 reads as follows: 'Selected Refresh Proposal is implemented. The 
Refresh Proposal selected from the second Ballot is implemented by the 
Administrator and the Procedure ends.'

The problem I forsee is-- what happens when the Procedure ends?  The fact 
that it ends gives no indication as to what happens next, and the rule says 
nothing about what happens afterwards.  One could say that the Administrator 
can then turn the Clock back on and the game would resume, but I'm not sure 
if this can happen... does anyone else agree/see the same problem/have a 
solution?  Or am I merely paranoid 'cause I should be in Bed (TM)?

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:25:26 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: rule 0 problem
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 11:14:28PM -0400, The Voice wrote:
> The problem I forsee is-- what happens when the Procedure ends?  The fact 
> that it ends gives no indication as to what happens next, and the rule says 
> nothing about what happens afterwards.  One could say that the 
> Administrator can then turn the Clock back on and the game would resume, 
> but I'm not sure if this can happen... does anyone else agree/see the same 
> problem/have a solution?  Or am I merely paranoid 'cause I should be in Bed 
> (TM)?

Well, obviously you shouldn't vote for an emergency proposal which
doesn't restart the Clock.
-- 
Rob Speer

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFIs: Nobody's won just yet
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:26:50 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>[[Okay, here are two CFIs, a nice little last-ditch thing. Perhaps not as
 > well thought-out or stated as they could be, but...]]
 >
 > CFI1:
 > Statement: Universal Entropy has not been pushed over 500 by Wonko's
 > purchase of 5 DimShips and eir subsequent setting of said ships's 
Buoyancy
 > to 100 entropy each.
 >
 > Analysis: Rule 493 states the following: "A DimShip is capable of 
carrying a
 > Player through DimSpace by taking on virtual dimensional values: Buoyancy
 > (positive virtual value) and Ballast (negative virtual value)." Note the 
use
 > of the word "a." Wonko can't be displaced by all 5 DimShips, and even if 
e
 > could, e still wouldn't be at 500 entropy, because nowhere does it say 
that
 > effects are cumulative.

Didn't we just establish that, according to what the rules actually say, all
5 can work at once and they must be cumulative not only with each other but
with themselves as well?

-Did we? Well, let's settle it for once and for all, eh?-

 >
 >
 > Defendant: Wonko
 >
 > CFI2:
 > Statement: No player has been awarded a Win based upon eir virtual
 > dimensions as set by eir DimShips.
 >
 > Analysis: Rule 493: "Ballast and Buoyancy are each limited to 100. Each 
can
 > be set to as much as 100, even at the same time, for displacement in 
single
 > or multiple dimensions. That is, no matter how many dimensions Ballast is
 > gathered for, total Ballast must be less than or equal to 100; same with
 > Buoyancy." Regardless of updates to eir dimensions, players are not 
awarded
 > higher or lower points, entropy, or any dimension past the values set by 
eir
 > virtual dimensions, that is, changing the value of one's score Buoyancy 
does
 > not change one's actual score, because only "Rules that change the values 
of
 > dimensions, though, will change eir real dimensions." (Rule 493 again)
 > Therefore, no one's dimensions are changed by eir DimShips any further 
from
 > eir actual dimensions than the Buoyancy and Ballast of eir Dimships.

And when Rules change the values of dimensions, how do they know what the
'real' values are? They check. And checking always returns the virtual
dimensions. What the rule meant to do, I suspect, was say 'when a rule
*other than this one* queries a players dimensions, it gets eir virtual
dimensions.' But it didn't, so it bamboozles itself.

-Look, I like the Game the way it is. I'm looking for a solution, and this 
is all I'm finding. The Judgements on these CFIs has the force of law, yes?-

 > Defendant: Rob

--
Wonko

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:37:00 -0400
From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFIs: Nobody's won just yet
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 10:36:36PM -0400, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> [[Okay, here are two CFIs, a nice little last-ditch thing. Perhaps not as 
> well thought-out or stated as they could be, but...]]
> 
> CFI1:
> Statement: Universal Entropy has not been pushed over 500 by Wonko's 
> purchase of 5 DimShips and eir subsequent setting of said ships's Buoyancy 
> to 100 entropy each.
> 
> Analysis: Rule 493 states the following: "A DimShip is capable of carrying 
> a Player through DimSpace by taking on virtual dimensional values: Buoyancy 
> (positive virtual value) and Ballast (negative virtual value)." Note the 
> use of the word "a." Wonko can't be displaced by all 5 DimShips, and even 
> if e could, e still wouldn't be at 500 entropy, because nowhere does it say 
> that effects are cumulative.
> 
> Defendant: Wonko

Does this analysis hinge on the word "a"? If so, I'll have to agree with
Wonko and I believe a few other people that that argument is absurd.

The indefinite pronoun in English can be, and often is, generalized. "A
cheetah can run faster than a lion" applies to cheetahs in general. By
your interpretation it would imply "... and all the rest can't."

Plus it would totally screw up any other rule which uses the generalized
indefinite pronoun.

> CFI2:
> Statement: No player has been awarded a Win based upon eir virtual 
> dimensions as set by eir DimShips.
> 
> Analysis: Rule 493: "Ballast and Buoyancy are each limited to 100. Each can 
> be set to as much as 100, even at the same time, for displacement in single 
> or multiple dimensions. That is, no matter how many dimensions Ballast is 
> gathered for, total Ballast must be less than or equal to 100; same with 
> Buoyancy."

But isn't this referring to individual DimShips?

-- 
Rob Speer

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 00:55:58 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: my head hurts.
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/29/02 at 4:32 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>* Completely unrelated stuff: I don't think BvS can make others members of
>vSOI, as this seems to be the sort of thing that would require the consent
>of the enrolled player.

Well, I did ask to be a member, but thanks for your concern. :)

						Glotmorf

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: my head hurts. 
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:03:25 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> I'm tempted to suggest that someone declare a DimShip-related Emergency,
> but I don't want to resort to that, at least not yet.
> 
 If Wonko's right, I already am recognising one.

 But I don't think he is.

 WC.

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: vSOI: Now Hiring
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:17:25 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Tuesday 28 May 2002 9:43 pm, you wrote:
> I'd like to join, I'll offer 5 points. :)
>
> -If 5 points are taken from bd and transfered to me, I make bd a member of
> vSOI. Viva corruption!-

If the club charter for vSOI is interpreted to mean that vSOI (the club) may 
not make proposals, but its members can, I give BvS 5 points and join vSOI.

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:17:52 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Monkey Wrench in the Works
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> I make this CFJ:
> {{
> 
> The following quantities are undefined:
> * Baron von Skippy's Charm, Score, Respect, and Entropy
> * Glotmorf's Respect and Entropy
> * Rob's Score and Style
> * The Voice's Score, Style, and Entropy
> * Wild Card's Activity, Charm, Score, and Entropy
> * Wonko's Score, BAC, and Entropy
> * Global Entropy
> 
> Any statement about the numeric values of any of the above made in the
> past nweek is false.
> }}

FALSE by definition - if it's true, the above statement (which was made in
the past nweek) must be false. Besides, that's two statements. Don't you
only get one?
-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:23:07 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Never left the ground.
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Gavin Doig,

> I *buzz* give all my *buzz* pointth, one beer, and the thcarf to Wonko, for
> his thterling effortth to play nomic. *crackle*
> 
> I change my name to "Slumbering Giant 1".
> I give my proxy to Wonko, with the restriction that he only use it to vote the
> way he thinks I'd want him to.
> I briefly ponder whether I can do the above at the moment.
> I go on Leave, with an expected return date of 20020619.
> 
> uin.

I am *buzz* hon'r'd to get this *crack.* hon'r.

I will try *buzz* to foll. R P's instr.'s as *crack.* well as I can.

-- 
Wonk.

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:39:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Database bug
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Look at rule 296 in the rules page.  It's there, but it's not!

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:43:40 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: General confusion
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> This also screws everything up. I suggest that any dimension whose value
> is undefined should work like this: if a rule tries to determine whether
> something is true about that dimension, it should come out false, no
> matter what. So, as an example:
> 
> Is my score higher than Wonko's? No.
> Is my score lower than Wonko's? No.
> Is my score equal to Wonko's? No.
> [[ Sure, they are both undefined, but don't go trying to consider
> numbers that don't exist equivalent. ]]
> Is my score anything at all? No.

I see no *buzz* reas. to make those claims. I would say,

Is my score high next to Rob's? It is not poss. to tell.
Is *buzz* my score low next to Rob's? *buzz* It is not poss. to tell.
 *crack.* Is my score like Rob's? It is not poss. *crack.* to tell.
Is my score *buzz* anything at all? It is not poss. to tell.

With your [[interpretation *buzz*]], we have a *crack.* p-dox -
Is my score 300? No.
Is my *crack.* score not 300? No.

With mine, it's *buzz* just an [[ambiguity]]. I'd say em. handl'g *buzz* is
in *crack.* ord.

-- 
Wonk. *crack.*

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 22:44:24 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Database bug
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Dan Waldron wrote:

> Look at rule 296 in the rules page.  It's there, but it's not!

(jedi mind trick)

These are not the rules you're looking for.

...dave

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:17:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ships
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> [[We don't *crackle* know how many syllables we all can use, or whether
> various dimensionally triggered events - such as the Entropy *crackle* Death
> of the Nomiverse, and all it's *buzz* consequences - are happenening or
> not... Basically, the Gamestate is unknowable. That's a crisis if I ever saw
> one...]]

We can use as many syllables as we like.  The answer to the question "Does
entropy exceed x," is "no" for any value of x.  Anyway, perhaps you don't
know how many syllables you can use, but since I don't have a dimship I
can use as many as I like.

There's no need to declare an emergency just because some game values are
screwed up.  We can still change the rules so we can fix this by a normal
proposal.

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:19:24 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay, these are the players that are recognizing a State of Emergency at
the present time:

The Reality Police (who's been doing it for many nweeks now)
The Voice
Wonko
bd

Did I miss anyone?

Rule Zero requires that eight people recognize an Emergency before said
rule kicks in. In the meantime, I'll be attempting to recognize whatever I
still can...

...dave

---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis, MO 63151

Disturbingly cool! Visit http://www.majesticmix.com/

http://www.technopagan.org/     http://metadave.net/
http://www.bureau42.com/        http://whatIsay.com/

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:22:25 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
>Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:19:24 +0000 (GMT)
>
>Okay, these are the players that are recognizing a State of Emergency at
>the present time:
>
>The Reality Police (who's been doing it for many nweeks now)
>The Voice
>Wonko
>bd
>
>Did I miss anyone?
>
>Rule Zero requires that eight people recognize an Emergency before said
>rule kicks in. In the meantime, I'll be attempting to recognize whatever I
>still can...
>
>...dave
>

I believe Wild Card is as well.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing 
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:41:24 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I believe Wild Card is as well.

 I don't :)

 WC.

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:40:34 +0100 (BST)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I explicitly _dont_ recognise an emergency. We may not be entirely
certain about the game state, but thats what CFIs are for. If (and only
if) said CFIs determine Wonko's interpretaion of the rules to be correct
do we have anything aproaching an emergency...

cheers,
Iain

On Wed, 29 May 2002, David E. Smith wrote:

> Okay, these are the players that are recognizing a State of Emergency at
> the present time:
> 
> The Reality Police (who's been doing it for many nweeks now)
> The Voice
> Wonko
> bd
> 
> Did I miss anyone?
> 
> Rule Zero requires that eight people recognize an Emergency before said
> rule kicks in. In the meantime, I'll be attempting to recognize whatever I
> still can...
> 
> ...dave
> 
> 
> ---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis, MO 63151
> 
> Disturbingly cool! Visit http://www.majesticmix.com/
> 
> http://www.technopagan.org/     http://metadave.net/
> http://www.bureau42.com/        http://whatIsay.com/
> 
> 

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:42:30 +0100 (BST)
From: ID Scott <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Crash Fix
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Though this proposal dosent deal with new dimships...

cheers,
Iain

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Dan Waldron wrote:

> The following is a proposal:
> {{
> __crash fix__
> 
> all DimShips cease to exist.
> 
> Amend rule 493 by enclosing its entire text in comment double-brackets.
> 
> Set player attributes according to the following table:
> name                activity  charm   entropy respect  Score  Style
> Baron von Skippy	4	7	20.5	0	100	0	
> bd			2	3	5	0	69	0
> bean			9	5	21	0	169	0
> Dan			2	-3	10	0	177	0
> Ed Murphy		-1	1	1	1	46	0
> Glotmorf		14	31.5	43.5	0	434	28
> Iain			0	2.5	11.5	0	107	0
> Naath			5	-3	10.5	0	37	0
> rachel			-2	0	0.5	0	40	0
> Rob			7	2	16	1	199	-3
> The Reality Police	1	-6	13.5	0	33	22
> The Voice		12	29	35	0	285	0
> Wild Card		7	11	28	0	86	2
> Wonko			13	53	45	0	92	15
> 
> [[These are the attributes from www.nomic.net/~g6/static/roster.html]]
> 
> }}
> 
> Dan Waldron
> ICQ 57894467
> 
> 
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 20:02:15 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Crash Fix
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/29/02 at 7:37 PM Dan Waldron wrote:

>The following is a proposal:
>{{
>__crash fix__
>
>all DimShips cease to exist.
>
>Amend rule 493 by enclosing its entire text in comment double-brackets.
>
>Set player attributes according to the following table:
>name                activity  charm   entropy respect  Score  Style
>Baron von Skippy	4	7	20.5	0	100	0	
>bd			2	3	5	0	69	0
>bean			9	5	21	0	169	0
>Dan			2	-3	10	0	177	0
>Ed Murphy		-1	1	1	1	46	0
>Glotmorf		14	31.5	43.5	0	434	28
>Iain			0	2.5	11.5	0	107	0
>Naath			5	-3	10.5	0	37	0
>rachel			-2	0	0.5	0	40	0
>Rob			7	2	16	1	199	-3
>The Reality Police	1	-6	13.5	0	33	22
>The Voice		12	29	35	0	285	0
>Wild Card		7	11	28	0	86	2
>Wonko			13	53	45	0	92	15
>
>[[These are the attributes from www.nomic.net/~g6/static/roster.html]]
>
>}}
>
>Dan Waldron
>ICQ 57894467

Dude.  Yer talkin' about the blowin' away of about a thousand points o' game stuff.  That's heinous, dude.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:11:33 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> Just to confirm: the Clock's off, thanks to the Writ of Delay, right?
> So no new business can come in?

Under the most recent revision of Rule 3, stuff still comes in. Actions
are recognized in order. In fact, I've got a big "Daily Recognizer"
sitting in my text editor, waiting for the Clock to come back on. (Though
none of it's yet official, it's all been added to the Web page already.)

...dave

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 20:15:54 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/30/02 at 12:11 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Wed, 29 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:
>
>> Just to confirm: the Clock's off, thanks to the Writ of Delay, right?
>> So no new business can come in?
>
>Under the most recent revision of Rule 3, stuff still comes in. Actions
>are recognized in order. In fact, I've got a big "Daily Recognizer"
>sitting in my text editor, waiting for the Clock to come back on. (Though
>none of it's yet official, it's all been added to the Web page already.)
>
>...dave

Then I'd suggest we get a state of emergency going, just so we can sort through it all.  Of late, we've had CFIs being flung about like bodies in a Jackie Chan movie.  It'd probably be a good idea for a refresh proposal to make a bunch of them go away.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:31:32 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:

> Then I'd suggest we get a state of emergency going, just so we can sort
> through it all.  Of late, we've had CFIs being flung about like bodies
> in a Jackie Chan movie.  It'd probably be a good idea for a refresh
> proposal to make a bunch of them go away.

I have the same comment in the aforementioned Recognizer-in-progress:

(aside: if this all comes down to an Emergency, hopefully the Refresh
proposals will include wiping all these irrelevant CFIs from the books, or
at least setting them all to "REFUSED" or somethin'.)

Then again, a few lines down, I have:

(I *knew* that the ability to do arbitrary judge assignments would be
amusing. Well, *I* think it's funny.)

For those who haven't peeked yet: Two of the CFIs challenge Rob's and
Wonko's wins. I assigned the one challenging Rob's win to Wonko, and vice
versa. I'm a sick sick person.

...dave

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 20:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Crash Fix
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> 
> Dude.  Yer talkin' about the blowin' away of about a thousand points
> o' game stuff.  That's heinous, dude.
> 
> 						Glotmorf

If there is consensus that people have been ripped off they can be
compensated afterwards.  Right now I'm just concerned with getting the
game running again.

Probably the easiest way to do it is for someone to go over the numbers
and write up a compensation package.

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Crash Fix
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 20:58:41 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wednesday 29 May 2002 8:55 pm, Dan Waldron wrote:
> > Dude.  Yer talkin' about the blowin' away of about a thousand points
> > o' game stuff.  That's heinous, dude.
> >
> > 						Glotmorf
>
> If there is consensus that people have been ripped off they can be
> compensated afterwards.  Right now I'm just concerned with getting the
> game running again.
>
> Probably the easiest way to do it is for someone to go over the numbers
> and write up a compensation package.

But we need to agree on this, and anyone with dimships has an uncertain 
entropy(everyone else probably has 0) so they can use only 1 syllable at 
most.

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: my head hurts.
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:51:06 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

* Completely unrelated stuff: I don't think BvS can make others members of 
vSOI, as this seems to be the sort of thing that would require the consent 
of the enrolled player.

-Hmm... That's not how I've ben reading it. In any case, not one of the 
players that has been made a member as of yet has complained in the 
slightest. Glotmorf and bd actually asked... (WC, sorry, I almost forgot, 
I'll get right on it.) If any of those players wish to leave, they may do so 
simply by stating that they do. If this isn't the case, then how should they 
join? They have to ask at some point.-

                                              -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ships
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 22:15:10 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I *buzz* rec. a r0 state of *crack.* Em.
-State of crack? That I can deal with...-

I think we *crack.* should make a refr. prop that *buzz* destr.s all Ships, 
stops *crack.* us from mak'g new ones, and sets *buzz* each guy's dims to 
what it says on the *crack.* site on the web.
-That's fine, but one suggestion: REFUND.-

[[We don't *crackle* know how many syllables we all can use, or whether
various dimensionally triggered events - such as the Entropy *crackle* Death 
of the Nomiverse, and all it's *buzz* consequences - are happenening or 
not... Basically, the Gamestate is unknowable. That's a crisis if I ever saw 
one...]]
-Don't worry, I'm sure we can do worse.-

--
*buzz*Wonk.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Crash Fix
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 22:27:16 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Lovely, but I'll only vote for it if you refund all DimShip owners, either 
by adding that to your rule, or by changin the values in your table. I want 
my 100 points back...

                                             BvS

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 22:31:17 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

For those who haven't peeked yet: Two of the CFIs challenge Rob's and
Wonko's wins. I assigned the one challenging Rob's win to Wonko, and vice 
versa. I'm a sick sick person.

-That being exactly what I didn't want you to do... Well, damn, there goes 
reality. If you'll all excuse me, I'm going to go make a fort out of 
cardboard boxes and hide in it.-

                                           -BvS-

...dave

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 02:35:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Alex Truelsen wrote:

>> For those who haven't peeked yet: Two of the CFIs challenge Rob's and
>> Wonko's wins. I assigned the one challenging Rob's win to Wonko, and vice
>> versa. I'm a sick sick person.
>
> -That being exactly what I didn't want you to do... Well, damn, there goes
> reality. If you'll all excuse me, I'm going to go make a fort out of
> cardboard boxes and hide in it.-

Like it matters. No matter what decision is rendered, someone's gonna
appeal. Whether the defendant, a neutral third party, or maybe just me on
general principle, it'll get appealed.

In fact, I'll probably appeal everything, just so these issues will be
decided by the Upper House. This is big enough that no one person should
be responsible.

...dave

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 22:39:24 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 >> For those who haven't peeked yet: Two of the CFIs challenge Rob's and
 >> Wonko's wins. I assigned the one challenging Rob's win to Wonko, and 
vice
 >> versa. I'm a sick sick person.
 >
 > -That being exactly what I didn't want you to do... Well, damn, there 
goes
 > reality. If you'll all excuse me, I'm going to go make a fort out of
 > cardboard boxes and hide in it.-

Like it matters. No matter what decision is rendered, someone's gonna
appeal. Whether the defendant, a neutral third party, or maybe just me on 
general principle, it'll get appealed.

In fact, I'll probably appeal everything, just so these issues will be
decided by the Upper House. This is big enough that no one person should
be responsible.

...dave

-Granted. I mean, it's not like I expected both to be put into the hands of 
anyone who agreed with me, anyway. By the way, does anyone have a spare 
cardboard box?-

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:38:13 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> On Wed, 29 May 2002, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> 
>>> For those who haven't peeked yet: Two of the CFIs challenge Rob's and
>>> Wonko's wins. I assigned the one challenging Rob's win to Wonko, and vice
>>> versa. I'm a sick sick person.
>> 
>> -That being exactly what I didn't want you to do... Well, damn, there goes
>> reality. If you'll all excuse me, I'm going to go make a fort out of
>> cardboard boxes and hide in it.-
> 
> Like it matters. No matter what decision is rendered, someone's gonna
> appeal. Whether the defendant, a neutral third party, or maybe just me on
> general principle, it'll get appealed.
> 
> In fact, I'll probably appeal everything, just so these issues will be
> decided by the Upper House. This is big enough that no one person should
> be responsible.

Well, hopefully, appeals will be unneccesary - we just need to turn on r0
and everything comes out all nice and tidy.

I hope we get the eight emergency people soon... I might have to find
another way to screw things up otherwise ;)

Speaking of which, what happens if I CFI and name the admin as defendant?
The player with the highest score should choose the judge (and not at
random, technically - rule 127 should have had the word 'randomly' taken out
of it, I don't know why it doesn't), but we don't know who has the highest
score...

-- 
Wonko

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:41:05 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Dan Waldron,

> Repeal rule 0

Ummm... where are we without r0?

-- 
Wonko
thinks we'd be up a certain creek without a certain tool...

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:47:58 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: A solution?
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hmmm.... Some *buzz* thing just oc *crack.* curred to me...

Acc. to *buzz* r493,

"If a player owns a DimShip and has launched it, then rules that check eir
dimension values will check the values of eir virtual dimensions."

*crack.*

Not, 'the values of *crack.* eir virtual dimensions plus eir real
dimensions.'
Not, 'the sum of eir real and virtual dimensions *crack.*.'
Just *buzz* 'eir virtual dimensions.'
Does not that mean that in fact my dims are the sum of all the virt.
*crack.* vals I have, [[regardless]] of my "real" vals?
So I've got *buzz* 501 Ent., 299 Score, -100 B A C?

-- 
Wonk.
keeps *buzz*[[forgetting about Entropy]] and Scarf [[*crackle*
Restrictions]]

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 03:59:12 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: A solution?
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Wonko wrote:

> keeps *buzz*[[forgetting about Entropy]] and Scarf [[*crackle*
> Restrictions]]

Since the Clock is Off, I don't believe they apply anyway.

I'm not sure, honestly, but it's hard to be sure of anything taking place
in the game right about now.

...dave

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:12:04 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/29/02 at 11:38 PM Wonko wrote:

>Speaking of which, what happens if I CFI and name the admin as defendant?
>The player with the highest score should choose the judge (and not at
>random, technically - rule 127 should have had the word 'randomly' taken
>out
>of it, I don't know why it doesn't), but we don't know who has the highest
>score...
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Well, my score isn't affected by any buoyancy, so that makes my score the highest one known...Can I name myself as judge for your CFIs? :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:27:41 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/29/02 at 7:12 PM Dan Waldron wrote:

>The following is a new proposal
>
>{{
>__Introducing Physical Law__

This is gonna take some thought...thought undistracted by the panic going on around me. :)  You might do well to either wait for this to happen next nweek, or restructure it as an A La Carte Prop with cascading dependence between the items.

BTW...do you see your use of the word "Charter" as compatible or incompatible with my use?

And did you want to throw in as part of your definitions a reference to an online dictionary?

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 04:36:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Wonko wrote:

> Speaking of which, what happens if I CFI and name the admin as defendant?
> The player with the highest score should choose the judge (and not at
> random, technically - rule 127 should have had the word 'randomly' taken out
> of it, I don't know why it doesn't), but we don't know who has the highest
> score...

Um... the word 'randomly' doesn't appear in the current version of r127.

Your point does remain quite valid, though. It might be enough for a
separate Emergency declaration. ;)

...dave

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:36:38 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: #bnomic on IRC
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A reminder, and a notification to the new folks...The #bnomic area on IRC is still there, with password "proosal", if anyone wants to talk about all this in realtime.

Thanks in absentia to Bean.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 01:37:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 30 May 2002, Glotmorf wrote:
> This is gonna take some thought...thought undistracted by the panic
> going on around me. :)  You might do well to either wait for this to
> happen next nweek, or restructure it as an A La Carte Prop with
> cascading dependence between the items.

Understood.  I don't think I can make it work as an A La Carte Prop since
most of the rule changes are just things I needed to change to make other
things work.

> 
> BTW...do you see your use of the word "Charter" as compatible or
> incompatible with my use?

I would like it, eventually, to be compatible.  I'm afraid I haven't taken
the time nescessary to reconcile them yet, so I left all the charter stuff
out of this proposal.

> And did you want to throw in as part of your definitions a reference
> to an online dictionary?

It's probably better not to.  But I might be able to redo the definitions
in better way or change the terminology.  Suggestions?

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 01:54:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Waldron <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Wonko wrote:

> Quoth Dan Waldron,
> 
> > Repeal rule 0
> 
> Ummm... where are we without r0?

I don't think it's nescessary.  There is a clause that if the game becomes
unplayable that empowers the Administrator to make nescessary changes.
But if you'd rather keep rule 0 the changes I made to get things like
ministries working will also let it work as a mutable rule.  So I'll put
it back if you prefer.

Dan Waldron
ICQ 57894467

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 07:32:54 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/30/02 at 1:37 AM Dan Waldron wrote:

>> And did you want to throw in as part of your definitions a reference
>> to an online dictionary?
>
>It's probably better not to.  But I might be able to redo the definitions
>in better way or change the terminology.  Suggestions?

That wasn't the point.  Thing is, there've been a few instances recently where a particular term used in the rules didn't have an explicit definition in the rules, but had a dictionary definition that could be reasonably applied to the situation.  Seeing as how we've probably got at least a hundred words that we rely on in the rules that we don't explicitly define, I'd like to see some sort of standard policy.  So far it's been decided on a case-by-case basis, which means "it's not defined in the rules" has been acceptable for some words but not for others.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:34:55 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Naath Thabana?= <[email-masked]>
Subject: spoon-discuss: CFI 754
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

there doesn't appear to be a CFJ 754 on the 'recent
CFJ' page... so put it there, tell me what it is, or I
won't judge it.

Naath

==Like duct tape the force is, a light side and a dark side it has, holds the universe together it does, hmm.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:43:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: "David E. Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: CFI 754
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thu, 30 May 2002, [iso-8859-1] Naath Thabana wrote:

> there doesn't appear to be a CFJ 754 on the 'recent
> CFJ' page... so put it there, tell me what it is, or I
> won't judge it.

Fixed. (I'd accidentally filed it under 'rules').

...dave

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 754
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:23:46 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So we can declared Wonko victorious in B-nomic.
Ignore everything else that went on since and start
all over again.  I suggest calling it C-nomic.

-Thankfully, that's not how it works. If he is awarded a win, we drop all 
scores to zero and keep going.-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: cfi 724
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:45:36 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: spoon-business: cfi 724
>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:44:19 -0400
>
>
>I appeal Naath's ruling on CFI 724.
>
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>

<humble>
Due to my apparent idocy, I recind my appeal of CFI 724.
</humble>

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:46:44 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> On Wed, 29 May 2002, Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Speaking of which, what happens if I CFI and name the admin as defendant?
>> The player with the highest score should choose the judge (and not at
>> random, technically - rule 127 should have had the word 'randomly' taken out
>> of it, I don't know why it doesn't), but we don't know who has the highest
>> score...
> 
> Um... the word 'randomly' doesn't appear in the current version of r127.

My mistake.

> Your point does remain quite valid, though. It might be enough for a
> separate Emergency declaration. ;)

It's a pity I didn't think to exploit it before I bought all those
DimShips... :(

Oh well, the game's strange anyway ;)

-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:48:39 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Well, if you insist...
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> Why are so many people so insistent that DimShips are to blame for the current
> situation?  After all, they can be fixed by changing or adding a sentence or
> two.
> 
> But if people are quite sure that DimShips themselves caused the chaos...
> 
> CFI statement:
> 
> Glotmorf wins B-Nomic.
> 
> Analysis:
> 
> Glotmorf is responsible for the existence of DimShips.  The very first use of
> a DimShip should have triggered a game-locking paradox.  Therefore, Glotmorf
> has achieved a Suberian style Nomic win.
> 

Seems to me that achieving a Suberian-style Nomic win would require a
Suberian-style Paradox Clause, which we don't have.

-- 
Wonko

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Well, if you insist...
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:52:47 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
> > Why are so many people so insistent that DimShips are to blame for the 
>current
> > situation?  After all, they can be fixed by changing or adding a 
>sentence or
> > two.
> >
> > But if people are quite sure that DimShips themselves caused the 
>chaos...
> >
> > CFI statement:
> >
> > Glotmorf wins B-Nomic.
> >
> > Analysis:
> >
> > Glotmorf is responsible for the existence of DimShips.  The very first 
>use of
> > a DimShip should have triggered a game-locking paradox.  Therefore, 
>Glotmorf
> > has achieved a Suberian style Nomic win.
> >
>
>Seems to me that achieving a Suberian-style Nomic win would require a
>Suberian-style Paradox Clause, which we don't have.
>
>--
>Wonko
>

And besides, haven't we already determined that the phrase, "X wins B Nomic" 
means nothing, as "winning" is not defined in the rules while "being awarded 
a win" is?  In fact, I believe that that makes the CFI saying that Wonko has 
won the game moot as well.  Just because Wonko (or Glotmorf for that matter) 
has won or wins the game does not mean that they are awarded a win for any 
reason, despite the similarity in terminology.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (special ABSURD edition) (Wednesday night)
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:07:03 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thursday 30 May 2002 12:34 am, David E. Smith wrote:
> Given the direness of other things going on, I'm not sure why I'm even
> bothering with some of this. But...
>
> This edition of the Daily Recognizer is brought to you by Project Majestic
> Mix (www.majesticmix.com). It's cool. Buy stuff.
>
> The Clock turns back On, as the Writ of Delay expires. (Give or take five
> minutes. Hopefully that can be forgiven.)
>
> Baron von Skippy enrolled a number of people in vSOI without their
> explicit consent; I believe that's illegal, and so it's not presently
> acknowledged.
>
> BvS buys Water and Earth Gnomes, and squeezes 'em. E is now standing in a
> bunch of Mud.
>
> Rob is randomly relocated on the Grid to (18,1). Eir Radar blips directly
> to eir north.
>
> Wonko is refunded the points e was erroneously charged for the failure of
> a Charter Proposal (all 2 of 'em).
>
> Whether Wonko was legally permitted to vote is, as was mentioned
> previously, irrelevant, though for the record, I now believe eir votes did
> in fact count.
>
> bd moves on the Grid (assuming there still IS a grid...) and picks up an
> Air Gnome.
>
> Rob gave a total of 40 points to the Gremlin Fund. That's tax-deductible,
> y'know...
>
> The Reality Police (from the Upper House) rules TRUE on CFI 712. That's
> 2/3 and thus the verdict is upheld.
>
> The Reality Police changes eir name (that's like the fifth or sixth name
> e's had this game), gives full proxy rights to Wonko, and goes On Leave.
>
> bd buys eir way into vSOI. (5 points transferred from bd to BvS)
>
>
> The many CFIs filed relating to possible Wins... (aside: if this all comes
> down to an Emergency, hopefully the Refresh proposals will include wiping
> all these irrelevant CFIs from the books, or at least setting them all to
> "REFUSED" or somethin'.)
>
> * Wild Card's is 754, assigned to Naath.
> * BvS's first is 756, assigned to Rob.
> * eir second  is 757, assigned to Wonko.
>
> (I *knew* that the ability to do arbitrary judge assignments would be
> amusing. Well, *I* think it's funny.)
>
> * Rob's "undefined" CFI is 758, assigned to Glotmorf. (rectified: "Global
>   Entropy" -> "Universal Entropy")
> * bd's "infinte entropy" CFI is 762, assigned to Ed Murphy.
>
>
> And the silliness continues, here's proposals:
>
> "Land First!" is 755/0 (rectified: I removed the comment delimiters,
> because some rule allows me to make changes I believe express the player's
> intent even if the player botches something as goofy as the delimiters)

Someone told me that [[ something like this ]] was a comment

> I'm not sure this is the best time to be mucking about with such things,
> but "Introducing Physical Law" is 759/0. (There's a spurious }} and a bit
> of text in the middle that's begging to be deleted at some point.)
>
> "crash fix" is 760/0.
>
> "The Twilight of the DimShip" is 761/0.
>
> ...dave

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFI 754
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:08:51 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thursday 30 May 2002 9:55 am, Naath Thabana wrote:
> So we can declared Wonko victorious in B-nomic.
> Ignore everything else that went on since and start
> all over again.  I suggest calling it C-nomic.

I haven't gotten *too* attached to b-nomic, so I'd go along. Maybe we can 
design stuff like the Grid, gnomes, web forms, etc in from the beginning...  

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:10:26 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wednesday 29 May 2002 10:39 pm, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> -Granted. I mean, it's not like I expected both to be put into the hands of
> anyone who agreed with me, anyway. By the way, does anyone have a spare
> cardboard box?-

If it's a bonus box, we don't know at the moment. :)

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: A solution?
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:11:39 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Wednesday 29 May 2002 11:47 pm, Wonko wrote:
> Hmmm.... Some *buzz* thing just oc *crack.* curred to me...
>
> Acc. to *buzz* r493,
>
> "If a player owns a DimShip and has launched it, then rules that check eir
> dimension values will check the values of eir virtual dimensions."
>
> *crack.*
>
> Not, 'the values of *crack.* eir virtual dimensions plus eir real
> dimensions.'
> Not, 'the sum of eir real and virtual dimensions *crack.*.'
> Just *buzz* 'eir virtual dimensions.'
> Does not that mean that in fact my dims are the sum of all the virt.
> *crack.* vals I have, [[regardless]] of my "real" vals?
> So I've got *buzz* 501 Ent., 299 Score, -100 B A C?

You don't need to mess up your message on spoon-discuss...

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: #bnomic on IRC
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:12:24 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thursday 30 May 2002 12:36 am, Glotmorf wrote:
> A reminder, and a notification to the new folks...The #bnomic area on IRC
> is still there, with password "proosal", if anyone wants to talk about all
> this in realtime.

What server?

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: Emergency queueing
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:14:34 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thursday 30 May 2002 12:12 am, Glotmorf wrote:
> On 5/29/02 at 11:38 PM Wonko wrote:
> >Speaking of which, what happens if I CFI and name the admin as defendant?
> >The player with the highest score should choose the judge (and not at
> >random, technically - rule 127 should have had the word 'randomly' taken
> >out
> >of it, I don't know why it doesn't), but we don't know who has the highest
> >score...
> >
> >--
> >Wonko
>
> Well, my score isn't affected by any buoyancy, so that makes my score the
> highest one known...Can I name myself as judge for your CFIs? :)

A recent CFI says glotmorf won... this makes all scores not affected by 
bouyancy 0. Thus, my score is zero. Thus, I am in the running! Yay!

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:26:02 -0400
Subject: spoon-discuss: Neatening up - English
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: Discussion Nomic <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

How does this look?

{{
__Neatening Up - Conventions__

Create:
{{
__Conventions__

[[This rule contains conventions on how certain parts of the rules shall be
interpreted in cases where it is confusing or ambiguous.]]

A. English

In all cases, the meaning of a term in the rules that is not specified as
having a specific meaning shall have the meaning granted to it by common use
of the english language and the context surrounding the use of the word.

B. Spivak Pronouns

The following table entries, known as Spivak pronouns, shall be understood
to replace the standard English third person pronouns with which they are
paired. The Spivak pronouns shall be understood to refer to either gender,
as appropriate. [[Example: "e" may refer either to "he" or "she".]]
                Spivak    standard
subject         e         he/she
object          em        him/her
possessive      eir/eirs  his/hers
reflexive       emself    himself/herself

Upon the creation of this rule, the admin must amend the above table to look
nice, after which this sentence and the following comment are deleted from
this rule. [[That's because I can't make it look all purdy like r7 does]]

C. Comments

The following two non-whitespace characters:

[ ]

are considered "reserved characters" when appearing in Official Documents in
ways defined herein.

Excepting any text in this Section prior to and including this sentence, any
text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.

D. Standard Delimiters

The character sequences '{{' and '}}' (without the single quotes) may be
used in the text of any Action, Proposal, or Rule to mark the beginning and
end, respectively, of text that should be set apart, such as the text of a
Proposal or Rule, or an amendment to either one. If it is not explicitly
specified that these character sequences mean something else, they are
considered to delimit text in that way.

The character sequence '__' (again without the single quotes) may be used to
delimit the title of a Rule or Proposal; the title begins after the first
'__' and ends before the second one. The title is applied to whatever Rule
or Proposal has most recently been introduced in the text of the message. If
it appears after the opening delimiter for the Rule or Proposal it should be
applied to, it is removed from the text of that Rule or Proposal and made to
be its title.

These standard delimiters are not required to be used in any circumstance;
any method of delimiting text in which it is reasonably clear where the text
begins and ends is sufficient.

}}

Repeal rules 217 [[Standard Delimiters]], 7 [[Spivak Pronouns]], and 8
[[Comments]].
}}
-- 
Wonko

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:27:52 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: #bnomic on IRC
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Thursday 30 May 2002 12:36 am, Glotmorf wrote:
>> A reminder, and a notification to the new folks...The #bnomic area on IRC
>> is still there, with password "proosal", if anyone wants to talk about all
>> this in realtime.
> 
> What server?

DALnet, if my memory serves me correctly.

BTW, does anyone know a good Mac IRC client? Preferably one that doesn't
scrap itself after 30 days?
-- 
Wonko

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: #bnomic on IRC
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:27:38 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thursday 30 May 2002 5:27 pm, Wonko wrote:
> Quoth bd,
>
> > On Thursday 30 May 2002 12:36 am, Glotmorf wrote:
> >> A reminder, and a notification to the new folks...The #bnomic area on
> >> IRC is still there, with password "proosal", if anyone wants to talk
> >> about all this in realtime.
> >
> > What server?
>
> DALnet, if my memory serves me correctly.
>
> BTW, does anyone know a good Mac IRC client? Preferably one that doesn't
> scrap itself after 30 days?

On OS X, try epicII aka ircII, or bitchX.

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:33:55 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: A solution?
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth *buzz* b d,

> On Wednesday 29 May 2002 11:47 pm, Wonko wrote:
>> Hmmm.... Some *buzz* thing just oc *crack.* curred to me...
>> 
>> Acc. to *buzz* r493,
>> 
>> "If a player owns a DimShip and has launched it, then rules that check eir
>> dimension values will check the values of eir virtual dimensions."
>> 
>> *crack.*
>> 
>> Not, 'the values of *crack.* eir virtual dimensions plus eir real
>> dimensions.'
>> Not, 'the sum of eir real and virtual dimensions *crack.*.'
>> Just *buzz* 'eir virtual dimensions.'
>> Does not that mean that in fact my dims are the sum of all the virt.
>> *crack.* vals I have, [[regardless]] of my "real" vals?
>> So I've got *buzz* 501 Ent., 299 Score, -100 B A C?
> 
> You don't need to mess *buzz* up your message on spoon-discuss...

It's the *crack.* spir. of the *buzz* thing. ;)

-- 
Wonk.

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:34:43 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: #bnomic on IRC
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth bd,

> On Thursday 30 May 2002 5:27 pm, Wonko wrote:
>> Quoth bd,
>> 
>>> On Thursday 30 May 2002 12:36 am, Glotmorf wrote:
>>>> A reminder, and a notification to the new folks...The #bnomic area on
>>>> IRC is still there, with password "proosal", if anyone wants to talk
>>>> about all this in realtime.
>>> 
>>> What server?
>> 
>> DALnet, if my memory serves me correctly.
>> 
>> BTW, does anyone know a good Mac IRC client? Preferably one that doesn't
>> scrap itself after 30 days?
> 
> On OS X, try epicII aka ircII, or bitchX.

So what if I haven't gotten around to getting OSX on this thing yet?

-- 
Wonko

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: #bnomic on IRC
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:41:36 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thursday 30 May 2002 5:27 pm, Wonko wrote:
> Quoth bd,
>
> > On Thursday 30 May 2002 12:36 am, Glotmorf wrote:
> >> A reminder, and a notification to the new folks...The #bnomic area on
> >> IRC is still there, with password "proosal", if anyone wants to talk
> >> about all this in realtime.
> >
> > What server?
>
> DALnet, if my memory serves me correctly.

Verifiec - it's DALnet.

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:29:14 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Well, if you insist...
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/30/02 at 4:48 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> Why are so many people so insistent that DimShips are to blame for the
>current
>> situation?  After all, they can be fixed by changing or adding a
>sentence or
>> two.
>> 
>> But if people are quite sure that DimShips themselves caused the chaos...
>> 
>> CFI statement:
>> 
>> Glotmorf wins B-Nomic.
>> 
>> Analysis:
>> 
>> Glotmorf is responsible for the existence of DimShips.  The very first
>use of
>> a DimShip should have triggered a game-locking paradox.  Therefore,
>Glotmorf
>> has achieved a Suberian style Nomic win.
>> 
>
>Seems to me that achieving a Suberian-style Nomic win would require a
>Suberian-style Paradox Clause, which we don't have.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Oh, I know.  But it made as much sense as anything happening these days. :)

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:31:02 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Neatening up - English
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/30/02 at 5:26 PM Wonko wrote:

>How does this look?
>
>
>{{
>__Neatening Up - Conventions__
>
>Create:
>{{
>__Conventions__
>
>[[This rule contains conventions on how certain parts of the rules shall be
>interpreted in cases where it is confusing or ambiguous.]]
>
>A. English
>
>In all cases, the meaning of a term in the rules that is not specified as
>having a specific meaning shall have the meaning granted to it by common
>use
>of the english language and the context surrounding the use of the word.
>
>B. Spivak Pronouns
>
>The following table entries, known as Spivak pronouns, shall be understood
>to replace the standard English third person pronouns with which they are
>paired. The Spivak pronouns shall be understood to refer to either gender,
>as appropriate. [[Example: "e" may refer either to "he" or "she".]]
>                Spivak    standard
>subject         e         he/she
>object          em        him/her
>possessive      eir/eirs  his/hers
>reflexive       emself    himself/herself
>
>Upon the creation of this rule, the admin must amend the above table to
>look
>nice, after which this sentence and the following comment are deleted from
>this rule. [[That's because I can't make it look all purdy like r7 does]]
>
>C. Comments
>
>The following two non-whitespace characters:
>
>[ ]
>
>are considered "reserved characters" when appearing in Official Documents
>in
>ways defined herein.
>
>Excepting any text in this Section prior to and including this sentence,
>any
>text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
>considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
>its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.
>
>D. Standard Delimiters
>
>The character sequences '{{' and '}}' (without the single quotes) may be
>used in the text of any Action, Proposal, or Rule to mark the beginning and
>end, respectively, of text that should be set apart, such as the text of a
>Proposal or Rule, or an amendment to either one. If it is not explicitly
>specified that these character sequences mean something else, they are
>considered to delimit text in that way.
>
>The character sequence '__' (again without the single quotes) may be used
>to
>delimit the title of a Rule or Proposal; the title begins after the first
>'__' and ends before the second one. The title is applied to whatever Rule
>or Proposal has most recently been introduced in the text of the message.
>If
>it appears after the opening delimiter for the Rule or Proposal it should
>be
>applied to, it is removed from the text of that Rule or Proposal and made
>to
>be its title.
>
>These standard delimiters are not required to be used in any circumstance;
>any method of delimiting text in which it is reasonably clear where the
>text
>begins and ends is sufficient.
>
>}}
>
>Repeal rules 217 [[Standard Delimiters]], 7 [[Spivak Pronouns]], and 8
>[[Comments]].
>}}
>-- 
>Wonko

Works for me.

Any idea how the dictionary thing is handled in other games?

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:42:30 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Neatening up - English
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/30/02 at 5:26 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> How does this look?
>> 
>> 
>> {{
>> __Neatening Up - Conventions__
>> 
>> Create:
>> {{
>> __Conventions__
>> 
>> [[This rule contains conventions on how certain parts of the rules shall be
>> interpreted in cases where it is confusing or ambiguous.]]
>> 
>> A. English
>> 
>> In all cases, the meaning of a term in the rules that is not specified as
>> having a specific meaning shall have the meaning granted to it by common
>> use
>> of the english language and the context surrounding the use of the word.
>> 
>> B. Spivak Pronouns
>> 
>> The following table entries, known as Spivak pronouns, shall be understood
>> to replace the standard English third person pronouns with which they are
>> paired. The Spivak pronouns shall be understood to refer to either gender,
>> as appropriate. [[Example: "e" may refer either to "he" or "she".]]
>> Spivak    standard
>> subject         e         he/she
>> object          em        him/her
>> possessive      eir/eirs  his/hers
>> reflexive       emself    himself/herself
>> 
>> Upon the creation of this rule, the admin must amend the above table to
>> look
>> nice, after which this sentence and the following comment are deleted from
>> this rule. [[That's because I can't make it look all purdy like r7 does]]
>> 
>> C. Comments
>> 
>> The following two non-whitespace characters:
>> 
>> [ ]
>> 
>> are considered "reserved characters" when appearing in Official Documents
>> in
>> ways defined herein.
>> 
>> Excepting any text in this Section prior to and including this sentence,
>> any
>> text appearing within doubled square brackets ("[[" and "]]") shall be
>> considered "comment" text. Comment text shall not have the force of Rule;
>> its purpose is solely elucidative or demonstrative.
>> 
>> D. Standard Delimiters
>> 
>> The character sequences '{{' and '}}' (without the single quotes) may be
>> used in the text of any Action, Proposal, or Rule to mark the beginning and
>> end, respectively, of text that should be set apart, such as the text of a
>> Proposal or Rule, or an amendment to either one. If it is not explicitly
>> specified that these character sequences mean something else, they are
>> considered to delimit text in that way.
>> 
>> The character sequence '__' (again without the single quotes) may be used
>> to
>> delimit the title of a Rule or Proposal; the title begins after the first
>> '__' and ends before the second one. The title is applied to whatever Rule
>> or Proposal has most recently been introduced in the text of the message.
>> If
>> it appears after the opening delimiter for the Rule or Proposal it should
>> be
>> applied to, it is removed from the text of that Rule or Proposal and made
>> to
>> be its title.
>> 
>> These standard delimiters are not required to be used in any circumstance;
>> any method of delimiting text in which it is reasonably clear where the
>> text
>> begins and ends is sufficient.
>> 
>> }}
>> 
>> Repeal rules 217 [[Standard Delimiters]], 7 [[Spivak Pronouns]], and 8
>> [[Comments]].
>> }}
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Any idea how the dictionary thing is handled in other games?
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 

I think I swiped that dictionary bit from some other game... Macronomic,
maybe?

-- 
Wonko

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 01:09:51 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 Lets get a head start here - anyone disagree with something like
this?:

{{
 All normal gameplay ceases.

 Players are anyone who was a player during nweek 16, plus the
Administrator.

 [email-masked] is a public forum.

 [email-masked] is not a public forum.

 Constitutional changes may be proposed on any public forum by any
player, and may change anything.

 Any constitutional change that is objected to by two players less
than 72 hours after it was proposed is defeated, and is removed from
consideration and ceases to exist.

 Any constitutional change that has not been objected to by two
players is put into affect 72 hours after it was proposed.  

 If at any point no constitutional change has been accepted within the
last three days, and it is at least 5 days after the process started,
then normal gameplay resumes at the beginning of nweek 18.
}}

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:21:22 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/31/02 at 1:09 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>Lets get a head start here - anyone disagree with something like
>this?:
>
>{{
> All normal gameplay ceases.
>
> Players are anyone who was a player during nweek 16, plus the
>Administrator.
>
> [email-masked] is a public forum.
>
> [email-masked] is not a public forum.
>
> Constitutional changes may be proposed on any public forum by any
>player, and may change anything.
>
> Any constitutional change that is objected to by two players less
>than 72 hours after it was proposed is defeated, and is removed from
>consideration and ceases to exist.
>
> Any constitutional change that has not been objected to by two
>players is put into affect 72 hours after it was proposed.  
>
> If at any point no constitutional change has been accepted within the
>last three days, and it is at least 5 days after the process started,
>then normal gameplay resumes at the beginning of nweek 18.
>}}

That's scary. :)  I see the forum being flooded with proposed changes on the off-chance that no one would object to them.

I also see Mr. A taking up Kentucky bourbon as a hobby. :)

But these are caveats.  Not necessarily objections...

						Glotmorf

To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal 
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 01:31:13 +0100
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> That's scary. :)  I see the forum being flooded with proposed changes on>  the off-chance that no one would object to them.

 *grins*
 
> I also see Mr. A taking up Kentucky bourbon as a hobby. :)

 Hmm, yes...

> But these are caveats.  Not necessarily objections...

 These are the problems I can see so far in the ruleset:

 a) DimShips have a big loophle.
 b) The clock doesn't work.
 c) Its possible to get into a situation where it's not allowed to
   create CFIs.
 d) The statute of limitations rule is a bit weak.
 e) We could do with imposing something like Dan's Physical/Legal
   proposal.

 The first three are emergencyworthy between them IMHO.

 WC.

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:43:21 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/31/02 at 1:31 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> b) The clock doesn't work.

The clock doesn't work?

						Glotmorf

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:46:42 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:43:21 -0400
>
>On 5/31/02 at 1:31 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>
> > b) The clock doesn't work.
>
>The clock doesn't work?
>
>						Glotmorf

I believe that this is the logic train:
1) It is impossible to know the score of anyone who owns a dimship.
2) It is, therefore, impossible to know if anyone has won or not.
3) The clock turns off as soon as someone wins.
4) Therefore, we do not know whether the clock is on or off.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:54:57 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> > b) The clock doesn't work.
>
>The clock doesn't work?
>
>						Glotmorf

I believe that this is the logic train:
1) It is impossible to know the score of anyone who owns a dimship.
2) It is, therefore, impossible to know if anyone has won or not.
3) The clock turns off as soon as someone wins.
4) Therefore, we do not know whether the clock is on or off.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

-Nweek 17, nday 3, it says. Looks on to me... Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm 
going back into my Cocoon of Blissful Ignorance.-

                                               -BvS-

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:58:41 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:54:57 -0400
>
>> > b) The clock doesn't work.
>>
>>The clock doesn't work?
>>
>>						Glotmorf
>
>
>I believe that this is the logic train:
>1) It is impossible to know the score of anyone who owns a dimship.
>2) It is, therefore, impossible to know if anyone has won or not.
>3) The clock turns off as soon as someone wins.
>4) Therefore, we do not know whether the clock is on or off.
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>
>-Nweek 17, nday 3, it says. Looks on to me... Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm
>going back into my Cocoon of Blissful Ignorance.-
>
>                                               -BvS-

The website is merely an as-accurate-as-possible-representation of what the 
gamestate is believed to be; it is not the gamestate itself.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:40:09 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/30/02 at 10:46 PM The Voice wrote:

>>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>To: [email-masked]
>>Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
>>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:43:21 -0400
>>
>>On 5/31/02 at 1:31 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>>
>> > b) The clock doesn't work.
>>
>>The clock doesn't work?
>>
>>						Glotmorf
>
>
>I believe that this is the logic train:
>1) It is impossible to know the score of anyone who owns a dimship.
>2) It is, therefore, impossible to know if anyone has won or not.
>3) The clock turns off as soon as someone wins.
>4) Therefore, we do not know whether the clock is on or off.
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

Well, you can know *my* score, since I'm not displaced in score, but I see what you're concerned about.

But I still maintain the same argument.  Either the game is completely broken and what anyone's score is doesn't matter, or precedent dictates the game isn't broken and the runaway acceleration stuff didn't happen.  I favor the latter, because to allow the runaway acceleration is to allow the game to be broken.

						Glotmorf

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:49:45 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/30/02 at 12:07 PM The Voice wrote:

>{{ __And The Lord Said You Gots Ta Rise Up-ah!__
>
>This is an A La Carte proposal.
>
>Item One:
>{{
>__Item One: Compensation__
>Destroy all DimShips, giving each player who owned one 100 points for each 
>DimShip destroyed in this manner.
>}}
>
>Item Two:
>{{
>__Item Two: Revenge__
>Repeal all rules with the keyword, "DimShip".
>Give Glotmorf 25 Points from the Gremlin Fund.
>}}
>
>}}
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

I would be against both items in this proposal.  The second, because I think dimships can be fixed with a sentence or two, and because they still have a lot of potential. (Especially once we start shooting at each other.)

The first, because it lets Wonko off the hook way too easily.  Wonko gambled it all and (in my opinion) lost.  I respect that.  I applaud that. ("Yes, my friend, you are bold, but are you also...daring?"  Get this man a bag of chips.)  But I'm not real fond of the idea of just rolling things back and pretending they didn't happen.

By the way...if I supported this at all, I'd want my Guns and Armor compensated for too.

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 00:04:23 -0400
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
From: Wonko <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/30/02 at 10:46 PM The Voice wrote:
> 
>>> From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>>> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>> To: [email-masked]
>>> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
>>> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:43:21 -0400
>>> 
>>> On 5/31/02 at 1:31 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>>> 
>>>> b) The clock doesn't work.
>>> 
>>> The clock doesn't work?
>>> 
>>> Glotmorf
>> 
>> 
>> I believe that this is the logic train:
>> 1) It is impossible to know the score of anyone who owns a dimship.
>> 2) It is, therefore, impossible to know if anyone has won or not.
>> 3) The clock turns off as soon as someone wins.
>> 4) Therefore, we do not know whether the clock is on or off.
>> 
>> -0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
> 
> Well, you can know *my* score, since I'm not displaced in score, but I see
> what you're concerned about.
> 
> But I still maintain the same argument.  Either the game is completely broken
> and what anyone's score is doesn't matter, or precedent dictates the game
> isn't broken and the runaway acceleration stuff didn't happen.  I favor the
> latter, because to allow the runaway acceleration is to allow the game to be
> broken.

Precedent cannot take precedence over the rules. We didn't notice it was
broken, but it was. And still is.

And we don't know your score - people may or may not have won, and depending
on that, your score may or may not have been reset to 0.

-- 
Wonko

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 00:13:10 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/31/02 at 12:04 AM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/30/02 at 10:46 PM The Voice wrote:
>> 
>>>> From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
>>>> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>>> To: [email-masked]
>>>> Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
>>>> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:43:21 -0400
>>>> 
>>>> On 5/31/02 at 1:31 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> b) The clock doesn't work.
>>>> 
>>>> The clock doesn't work?
>>>> 
>>>> Glotmorf
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I believe that this is the logic train:
>>> 1) It is impossible to know the score of anyone who owns a dimship.
>>> 2) It is, therefore, impossible to know if anyone has won or not.
>>> 3) The clock turns off as soon as someone wins.
>>> 4) Therefore, we do not know whether the clock is on or off.
>>> 
>>> -0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>> 
>> Well, you can know *my* score, since I'm not displaced in score, but I
>see
>> what you're concerned about.
>> 
>> But I still maintain the same argument.  Either the game is completely
>broken
>> and what anyone's score is doesn't matter, or precedent dictates the game
>> isn't broken and the runaway acceleration stuff didn't happen.  I favor
>the
>> latter, because to allow the runaway acceleration is to allow the game
>to be
>> broken.
>
>Precedent cannot take precedence over the rules. We didn't notice it was
>broken, but it was. And still is.
>
>And we don't know your score - people may or may not have won, and
>depending
>on that, your score may or may not have been reset to 0.
>
>-- 
>Wonko

Actually, precedent can take precedence, at least in common law.  Hence you have things like easements, squatters' rights, common-law marriages, palimony and other things that legally exist solely because they'd been allowed to continue for a long enough period of time.  Granted, we don't explicitly acknowledge common law in the rules, but then we're back to things like game custom, common sense and other things that allow us to use English and email without explicitly saying so.

Under the assumption that no one's score is known right now, no, my score isn't known.  The Voice had tied it to dimships, though.

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 01:32:20 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: cfi 724
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/30/02 at 2:45 PM The Voice wrote:

>>From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
>>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>To: [email-masked]
>>Subject: spoon-business: cfi 724
>>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:44:19 -0400
>>
>>
>>I appeal Naath's ruling on CFI 724.
>>
>>
>>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>
><humble>
>Due to my apparent idocy, I recind my appeal of CFI 724.
></humble>
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

So...is anyone else going to appeal CFI 754?  I can, but I'd much rather judge the appeal...

						Glotmorf

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:06:48 -0400
From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On 5/28/02 at 8:45 PM bd wrote:

>On Tuesday 28 May 2002 8:23 pm, you wrote:
>> Create a proposal consisting of the following text:
>> {{
>> __Land first!__
>>
>> Add the following text to the end of rule 635:
>>
>> [[
>> Guns and Armor may be added to a DimShip only if the DimShip is landed.
>> ]]
>>
>> }}
>
>Replace that proposal with this text:
>{{
>__Land first!__
>
>Add the following @@@ delimited text to the end of rule 635:
>
>@@@
>Guns and Armor may be added to a DimShip only if the DimShip is landed.
>@@@
>
>}}

How about instead declaring Guns and Armor to be Equipment, so that it's covered by a more general rule?  There may be other Equipment we'll want to add to DimShips.

						Glotmorf

From: "Alex Truelsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:04:48 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> > b) The clock doesn't work.
>>
>>The clock doesn't work?
>>
>>						Glotmorf
>
>
>I believe that this is the logic train:
>1) It is impossible to know the score of anyone who owns a dimship.
>2) It is, therefore, impossible to know if anyone has won or not.
>3) The clock turns off as soon as someone wins.
>4) Therefore, we do not know whether the clock is on or off.
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>
>-Nweek 17, nday 3, it says. Looks on to me... Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm
>going back into my Cocoon of Blissful Ignorance.-
>
>                                               -BvS-

The website is merely an as-accurate-as-possible-representation of what the 
gamestate is believed to be; it is not the gamestate itself.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

-This looks like a job for the word "harf"...-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:40:55 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Thursday 30 May 2002 11:40 pm, Glotmorf wrote:
> On 5/30/02 at 10:46 PM The Voice wrote:
> >>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
> >>Reply-To: [email-masked]
> >>To: [email-masked]
> >>Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
> >>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:43:21 -0400
> >>
> >>On 5/31/02 at 1:31 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> >> > b) The clock doesn't work.
> >>
> >>The clock doesn't work?
> >>
> >>						Glotmorf
> >
> >I believe that this is the logic train:
> >1) It is impossible to know the score of anyone who owns a dimship.
> >2) It is, therefore, impossible to know if anyone has won or not.
> >3) The clock turns off as soon as someone wins.
> >4) Therefore, we do not know whether the clock is on or off.
> >
> >-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
>
> Well, you can know *my* score, since I'm not displaced in score, but I see
> what you're concerned about.
>
> But I still maintain the same argument.  Either the game is completely
> broken and what anyone's score is doesn't matter, or precedent dictates the
> game isn't broken and the runaway acceleration stuff didn't happen.  I
> favor the latter, because to allow the runaway acceleration is to allow the
> game to be broken.

All right, is r0 invoked or not? And how difficult would it be to fix things 
if it is?

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:42:24 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 31 May 2002 12:13 am, Glotmorf wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, precedent can take precedence, at least in common law.  Hence you
> have things like easements, squatters' rights, common-law marriages,
> palimony and other things that legally exist solely because they'd been
> allowed to continue for a long enough period of time.  Granted, we don't
> explicitly acknowledge common law in the rules, but then we're back to
> things like game custom, common sense and other things that allow us to use
> English and email without explicitly saying so.
>
> Under the assumption that no one's score is known right now, no, my score
> isn't known.  The Voice had tied it to dimships, though.

IMHO, the rules don't _need_ to have power over us. If we all decide to do 
something else(even the admin), the rules don't have any power at all.

From: "The Voice" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:12:15 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From: bd <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:40:55 -0400
>
>On Thursday 30 May 2002 11:40 pm, Glotmorf wrote:
> > On 5/30/02 at 10:46 PM The Voice wrote:
> > >>From: "Glotmorf" <[email-masked]>
> > >>Reply-To: [email-masked]
> > >>To: [email-masked]
> > >>Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: Proposed r0 proposal
> > >>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:43:21 -0400
> > >>
> > >>On 5/31/02 at 1:31 AM Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> > >> > b) The clock doesn't work.
> > >>
> > >>The clock doesn't work?
> > >>
> > >>						Glotmorf
> > >
> > >I believe that this is the logic train:
> > >1) It is impossible to know the score of anyone who owns a dimship.
> > >2) It is, therefore, impossible to know if anyone has won or not.
> > >3) The clock turns off as soon as someone wins.
> > >4) Therefore, we do not know whether the clock is on or off.
> > >
> > >-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
> >
> > Well, you can know *my* score, since I'm not displaced in score, but I 
>see
> > what you're concerned about.
> >
> > But I still maintain the same argument.  Either the game is completely
> > broken and what anyone's score is doesn't matter, or precedent dictates 
>the
> > game isn't broken and the runaway acceleration stuff didn't happen.  I
> > favor the latter, because to allow the runaway acceleration is to allow 
>the
> > game to be broken.
>
>All right, is r0 invoked or not? And how difficult would it be to fix 
>things
>if it is?

No, because a majority of players need to recognize an emergency before r0 
kicks in.  Eight is a majority, and I think we only have six.

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

To: [email-masked]
Subject: spoon-discuss: test
From: Joel Uckelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 19:39:15 -0500
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A test to see if installing Mailman broke Majordomo...

-- 
J.

From: bd <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spoon-discuss: test
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:32:50 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Friday 31 May 2002 8:39 pm, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> A test to see if installing Mailman broke Majordomo...

It didn't...